Castle Aching

[Schooner]

5 hours ago, 16Brunel said:

A few minor things:

Thank you for taking the trouble to point these out - they're all helpful and make both plan and design better. I'll quote @16Brunel and just page @Edwardian to try to keep this concise (!)

 

5 hours ago, 16Brunel said:

 

- I still think you'll have trouble getting on to the CA turntable from the engine shed;

As shewn (still love it @Harlequin, when I remember!), you're quite right. The arrangement of the lines remained from the placeholder Hornby TT. The plan now shows a circle, not a TT model, so as to be the right size but missing proper connections. Bisecting that circle with the shed road still indicates an acceptable radius on the shed road of whatever that is, 31ish inches.

At some point I'll hunt through the libraries in SCARM to see if there's a TT of about the right size. It would be nice to confirm alignments.

 

5 hours ago, 16Brunel said:

 

- perhaps move the Achingham engine shed to the other end of the train shed, to allow the goods dock to be shunted without entering the ES/disturbing the goods shed?;

This confused me. What engine shed in Achingham? We took it out-oh!

 

Sorry, this is as change I forgot to remove. I was checking what would happen if, for whatever reason, perhaps related to the loss of AC Jnc South, the branch loco could no longer be stabled at CA and had to be moved to AM and/or there was a desire for both carriage shed and engine shed at AM. Looking at the track plan, simplest seemed to be to copy the arrangement at CA, so I literally copy/pasted the station across to see if it would work! 

 

In short, and your accurate observations notwithstanding I think it would. Although probably better would be to have the carriage shed there, and the engine shed back in it's old spot where the carriage shed now stands) if ever required, but anyway...

 

5 hours ago, 16Brunel said:

the track should probably go over the river, not vice versa.

You're no fun any more!

 

Quite right, laziness on my part. Designating track as a bridge works in the plan view

...but plays fast and loose with the fabric of reality when rendered in 3D

...so I tend not to bother!

 

Usefully the bridge deck in SCARM is precisely the same width as the Intentio cassettes.

 

 

Some general points

• I very much view this as 'a layout design which matches (ideally!) @Edwardian's criteria'. This is different to 'designing @Edwardian's layout'. Mostly I'm not too bothered about consistency or accuracy if fundamentals can be proven. The buildings are all the wrong size etc, but for now  as long as they make sense and help describe the use of space all that really matters is that the geometry to access them is reasonable.
• This means things like signal cabins, or the scenery around DA are very placeholder in nature, tend to wander around, and are only ever representative at best. For example, and to explain that grey rectangle, a brief tale on the arrival of DA to the modelled scene: Realising there might be space for A Thing on the branch line, I went back and re-read the Lore to see what sort of Thing might suit. DA was mentioned as a small station with a large house and annual military manoeuvres. It seemed a worthwhile inclusion, a complementary contrast in tone to CA and AM. I could find space for the station and wanted to check there was also room for the house and something to demonstrate the camp. To do this it made sense to mock up a possible scene...and having done that I've not had a reason to remove it! There's no expectation, however, that this would be the final format for the scenery.

 

Re Headshunt:

I'm no railwayman, so very open to correction here but my perception of headshunts

• Allow two working locos on scene at once - a yard shunter, a platform train
• Provides storage at other times

my perception of @Edwardian playstyle (as it were) and Castle Aching's likely vibe:

• quite high throughput of trains
• quite low handling of goods traffic

my perception of practical aspects

• 3-link couplings
• radius, absolute for running and consistency for aesthetics

Effectively these are all either covered, or in fact improved, by removing the headshunt and shunting on whichever line isn't being used. Obviously, the yard can't be shunted from the branch but a cut for/from the yard could be sorted from the branch whilst a train comes and goes on the main which ticks the operational and more-than-one-loco-in-steam-regulation boxes. I think. The loss of the storage could be mitigated by using the shed road and accessing the shed from the TT; or by using the loop and running round via the shed road. Lots of words where a picture would be better, but hopefully that makes sense? If so, is it correct?!

 

I have concerns about traffic patterns and 3-links couplings at CA in particular, and around the layout in general, but recall that shunting and goods traffic is not a priority. The only station really designed with shunting in mind is BM - which, being the largest on-scene settlement, with its cattle market, and transfer between routes, struck me as likely to be busiest and most fun to play with...?

 

4 hours ago, Nearholmer said:

 

Layout plan? I’m still worried (slight exaggeration) by the modest size of CA given the traffic to be handled (remember that timetable discussion?) and I almost wonder if CA should become AC, and the plan for AC should become CA. 

I had floated that idea before but it got sunk rather rapidly...! Again, I think it's important to remember the difference between designing a layout that might work for someone and designing someone's layout. It's easy for me to look at swapping the name boards on two toy train stations because there's a rational argument to do so; it might be much harder for someone else to destroy their concept of a place and setting and have to rebuild it to suit the model railway which is supposed to embody that concept in the first place. There is also the fact that, IIUC, Castle Aching is already built. Anyway, it makes for a better challenge :)

 

Would nowish be a good time to revist the timetable discussion? Feed in the latest plans for stock and formations, use the layout as presented so far? I enjoyed trying to follow along last time, and learned a lot.

 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

That's quite enough for now, thanks for reading to the end! I'll just note that painting tells us all we need to know about France's reputation as a holiday destination vs her performance in near-peer conflict. 

 

 

Edited March 22, 2023 by Schooner
The usuals

[Edwardian]

14 minutes ago, Schooner said:

Thank you for taking the trouble to point these out - they're all helpful and make both plan and design better. I'll quote @16Brunel and just page @Edwardian to try to keep this concise (!)

 

As shewn (still love it @Harlequin, when I remember!), you're quite right. The arrangement of the lines remained from the placeholder Hornby TT. The plan now shows a circle, not a TT model, so as to be the right size but missing proper connections. Dissecting that circle with the shed road still indicates an acceptable radius on the shed road of whatever that is, 31ish inches.

At some point I'll hunt through the libraries in SCARM to see if there's a TT of about the right size. It would be nice to confirm alignments.

 

This confused me. What engine shed in Achingham? We took it out-oh!

 

Sorry, this is as change I forgot to remove. I was checking what would happen if, for whatever reason, perhaps related to the loss of AC Jnc South, the branch loco could no longer be stabled at CA and had to be moved to AM and/or there was a desire for both carriage shed and engine shed at AM. Looking at the track plan, simplest seemed to be to copy the arrangement at CA, so I literally copy/pasted the station across to see if it would work! 

 

I had forgotten

 

14 minutes ago, Schooner said:

 

In short, and your accurate observations notwithstanding I think it would. Although probably better would be to have the carriage shed there, and the engine shed back in it's old spot where the carriage shed now stands) if ever required, but anyway...

 

Something to consider

 

14 minutes ago, Schooner said:

 

You're no fun any more!

 

Quite right, laziness on my part. Designating track as a bridge works in the plan view

...but plays fast and loose with the fabric of reality when rendered in 3D

...so I tend not to bother!

 

Usefully the bridge deck in SCARM is precisely the same width as the Intentio cassettes.

 

 

Some general points

• I very much view this as 'a layout design which matches (ideally!) @Edwardian's criteria'. This is different to 'designing @Edwardian's layout'. Mostly I'm not too bothered about consistency or accuracy if fundamentals can be proven. The buildings are all the wrong size etc, but for now  as long as they make sense and help describe the use of space all that really matters is that the geometry to access them is reasonable.
• This means things like signal cabins, or the scenery around DA are very placeholder in nature, tend to wander around, and are only ever representative at best. For example, and to explain that grey rectangle, a brief tale on the arrival of DA to the modelled scene: Realising there might be space for A Thing on the branch line, I went back and re-read the Lore to see what sort of Thing might suit. DA was mentioned as a small station with a large house and annual military manoeuvres. It seemed a worthwhile inclusion, a complementary contrast in tone to CA and AM. I could find space for the station and wanted to check there was also room for the house and something to demonstrate the camp. To do this it made sense to mock up a possible scene...and having done that I've not had a reason to remove it! There's no expectation, however, that this would be the final format for the scenery.

 

Either you build a layout to suit the history or a history to suit the layout, or some combination thereof. In this case, the history largely came first, which is not always consistent wityh optimal layout plans. it's rather like trying to adapt an actual prototype at times, and, perhaps, that's a useful way to think of it.

 

Sorry!

 

14 minutes ago, Schooner said:

Re Headshunt:

I'm no railwayman, so very open to correction here but my perception of headshunts

• Allow two working locos on scene at once - a yard shunter, a platform train
• Provides storage at other times

my perception of @Edwardian playstyle (as it were) and Castle Aching's likely vibe:

• quite high throughput of trains
• quite low loco handling of goods traffic

my perception of practical aspects

• 3-link couplings
• radius, absolute for running and consistency for aesthetics

Effectively these are all either covered, or in fact improved, by removing the headshunt and shunting on whichever line isn't being used. Obviously, the yard can't be shunted from the branch but a cut for/from the yard could be sorted from the branch whilst a train comes and goes on the main which ticks the operational and more-than-one-loco-in-steam-regulation boxes. I think. The loss of the storage could be mitigated by using the shed road and accessing the shed from the TT; or by using the loop and running round via the shed road. Lots of words where a picture would be better, but hopefully that makes sense? If so, is it correct?!

 

Yes, all true. The ability to work the yard independently is more, I suggest, to do with reducing the time that a couple of goods services would occupy the line and prevent passenger services entering or leaving the station. So the issue of a headhint in my mind links to Nearholmer's concerns and the issue of the timetable. 

 

 

14 minutes ago, Schooner said:

I have concerns about traffic patterns and 3-links couplings at CA in particular, and around the layout in general, but recall that shunting and goods traffic is not a priority. The only station really designed with shunting in mind is BM - which, being the largest on-scene settlement, with its cattle market, and transfer between routes, struck me as likely to be busiest and most fun to play with...?

 

Shunting. It needs to be possible, even if, in practice, I'm too lazy to do it!

 

You are quite right about BM, and I think that extra siding will be a boon. 

 

14 minutes ago, Schooner said:

I had floated that idea before but it got sunk rather rapidly...! Again, I think it's important to remember the difference between designing a layout that might work for someone and designing someone's layout. It's easy for me to look at swapping the name boards on two toy train stations because there's a rational argument to do so; it might be much harder for someone else to destroy their concept of a place and setting and have to rebuild it to suit the model railway which is supposed to embody that concept in the first place. There is also the fact that, IIUC, Castle Aching is already built. Anyway, it makes for a better challenge :)

 

You see, I think that Nearholner's experimental timetable showed that the station could handle what was required, but anuthing that helps that is welcome.

 

14 minutes ago, Schooner said:

Would nowish be a good time to revist the timetable discussion? Feed in the latest plans for stock and formations, use the layout as presented so far? I enjoyed trying to follow along last time, and learned a lot.

 

Yes, now seems a sensible time to revist

 

 

14 minutes ago, Schooner said:

 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

That's quite enough for now, thanks for reading to the end! I'll just note that painting tells us all we need to know about France's reputation as a holiday destination vs her performance in near-peer conflict. 

 

 

 

😁

[Annie]

10 hours ago, Edwardian said:

So, when you next hear the People sing, it may well be the sound of angry men, but it will also be a lot more complicated and contradictory than even a 3-hour musical can encompass, and you'll come to realise that the real tragedy of French history is that much of it is farce.   

Thank you very much for explaining all that James I feel very much better informed now.  Perhaps lady Liberty should pull her dress up properly and take up a nice hobby like gardening instead of stirring folk up to do silly things which largely seems to involve putting holes in other people and killing them; - Which is something another country that I shall not name is very good at while shouting her name to the rooftops (sigh).

[nick_bastable]

16 minutes ago, Annie said:

Thank you very much for explaining all that James I feel very much better informed now.  Perhaps lady Liberty should pull her dress up properly

so you suggest she puts her Devil bumps away

[Schooner]

Edited March 24, 2023 by Schooner
Overkill

[16Brunel]

On 23/03/2023 at 02:53, Schooner said:

You're no fun any more!

 

Well, with the nod to the Underground that leads to the Rest of the World cassette yard, I figured you'd already filled your river-over-rails quota!

 

Seriously, I too love designing layouts, I just wish I could get SCARM to work as well as everyone around here seems to!  Just didn't want to end up with the situation where those roundtuit problems, eg the turntable, breed further issues.  (I usually try to fit a short straight between a curve and a turntable, to give the wheels/ponies/bogies a chance to align themselves.)

 

Thanks in particular to James and yourself Schooner, and all other participants in general, I'm enjoying this thread immensely - long may it reign! - S.

[Annie]

On 23/03/2023 at 13:07, nick_bastable said:

so you suggest she puts her Devil bumps away

 

[Schooner]

1 hour ago, 16Brunel said:

...I figured you'd already filled your river-over-rails quota!

5) Strongly Agree!

 

1 hour ago, 16Brunel said:

Just didn't want to end up with the situation where those roundtuit problems, eg the turntable, breed further issues.  (I usually try to fit a short straight between a curve and a turntable, to give the wheels/ponies/bogies a chance to align themselves.)

Excellent point, noted. Bear in mind that these are - functionally - just sketches to test ideas rather than proper layout plans. They allow us, using Peco geometery as a known metric, to see what may work and what won't. No excuse for shoddy design, though!

 

1 hour ago, 16Brunel said:

I just wish I could get SCARM to work as well as everyone around here seems to! 

Just familiarity I suspect. For context, this is the 10th 11th iteration of the 8th basic format (of, I think, 12) we've collectively come up with...so far...!

 

 

Edited March 24, 2023 by Schooner
Ran out of fingers

[Edwardian]

Apropos non-scenic curves and the running of 6-wheeled stock with screw-link couplings ....

 

I think we came to the conclusion that we could fit 4th radius (24") curves under the CA boards. If double-tracked, and sticking to set-track, that would invove and inner 3rd radius curve (21"). 

 

Of course this method is not the same as screw links, but closer than tension locks. These are Hornby R7399 20mm magnetic couplers. Of course they are useless for anything without a NEM pocket, which will be most of my stock.

 

 

Nevertheless, the implications of this choice are of interest:

 

 

 

[Schooner]

On 22/03/2023 at 15:53, Schooner said:

The arrangement of the lines remained from the placeholder Hornby TT. The plan now shows a circle, not a TT model

No longer, thanks to Fleischmann Profi-Track system ref#6150. Found after a little rummage, but less than expected...

(the first of those is a traverser completely irrelevant for the WNR but dead handy to know about 'cos they were a right pain to do)

 

It scales out as a 41'3" deck and 55'6"outer diameter which seem reasonable upper and lower bounds - I had 42' in my head for the WNR TT, but not sure that's right?

 

CA

(Ignore the overhangs - SCARM doesn't do vertical very well)

 

AM

See what I mean about the platform-headshunt route? It could look alright.

 

BM

That ugly triangle at the back is supposedly a retaining wall for the access road to the bridge, but it mostly just to make sure there's enough room for a low-relief something beind the TT.

 

Excuse the crane stand-in. I may or may not be re-using props from previous layouts

 

😇

 

Just quickly on shunting: the trackplan has normal moves covered fairly well I think, and if I've done as intended then most shunts should be pretty simple. The concern from my end is simply the use of three-links at range, but what's possible/acceptable/desirable can only be worked out with practice as it depends on much on how they're used, what Slaters vs Smiths (eg),  obstructions/handrests, 'shunting pole' etc etc etc. I just want to keep mentioning it so we can be sure the plan does what it needs to do :)

[Schooner]

3 minutes ago, Edwardian said:

If double-tracked, and sticking to set-track, that would invove and inner 3rd radius curve (21"). 

Ideally this is true as it allows for structural benchwork between the track and the wall, but rear of the baseboards were supported on something more akin to shelf brackets then you could have inner 4th radius. I'm sure there are '5th radius' track-setting templates for accurate laying of a flexi outer radius...?

 

7 minutes ago, Edwardian said:

Nevertheless, the implications of this choice are of interest:

Ideal! Did I imagine the experiment with the Accurascale magnetic/chain couplings (from their chaldrons)? I can't seem to find it, but might be of interest also.

[James Harrison]

On 24/03/2023 at 12:49, Schooner said:

Ideally this is true as it allows for structural benchwork between the track and the wall, but rear of the baseboards were supported on something more akin to shelf brackets then you could have inner 4th radius. I'm sure there are '5th radius' track-setting templates for accurate laying of a flexi outer radius...?

 

Ideal! Did I imagine the experiment with the Accurascale magnetic/chain couplings (from their chaldrons)? I can't seem to find it, but might be of interest also.

 

It was seeing the Genesis carriages fitted with up the Accurascale chauldron magnetic couplings that prodded my own experiment, so if you did imagine them it would have been in the nature of a group hallucination :D If I remember rightly those couplings are also limited by the length of the buffer shanks?

[Schooner]

🤣 then I'll stop messing about with search functions and just go and find the thing!

 

 

...all the way back on the previous page

Looks great

 

3rd radius was deemed functional

but doubts were raised regarding maximum length of rakes relying on such couplings. Understandably.

 

So it looks like, if using both products straight out the box, then R3 is off the table and No good for a twin-track-to-Aching-Constable WNR.

[nick_bastable]

a cylinder magnet quite a choice on that auction site would resolve this issue  ( I think )

[James Harrison]

10 hours ago, Schooner said:

🤣 then I'll stop messing about with search functions and just go and find the thing!

 

 

...all the way back on the previous page

Looks great

 

3rd radius was deemed functional

but doubts were raised regarding maximum length of rakes relying on such couplings. Understandably.

 

So it looks like, if using both products straight out the box, then R3 is off the table and No good for a twin-track-to-Aching-Constable WNR.

 

I could get R3 to work, but with R2 the buffers started locking. 

[Donw]

Headshunts have the functions of avoiding the need for a trap to protect the main and also allowing shunting to be done while a train is on the way.  Say the next station is a good 10 mins away with getting the route set up with bells codes etc, tablet machines you are going to have the main clear right through to the platform at least 15 mins before the train will arrive. If however you have a headshunt and can keep the main clear you can carry on shunting. We ignore that in our models who wants to sit twiddling their thumbs until the train  is due to arise. There was a famous accident when a signalman decided there was time to complete a shunt with an express approaching.

 

If you have tight curves and three links it helps a lot if you have working buffers with soft springs so the inside buffers can compress on curves.

Don

[Edwardian]

Couplings.

 

Here is what I would like to do (though I'm not sure I quite know how).

 

(1)  Use screw links. As between coaches in a set, these do no need to be undone as a rule. If desired, therefor, one could always close off the top of the draw hook gap where the opposing coach's chain sits. An extra link could be added if the length needed easing out.

 

(2) Coupled vac pipes. As between coaches in a set, the vac pipes could be represented as joined by a single piece that is fixed as a pivot behind one headstock and hooks under the opposing headstock.

 

For the ends of sets, where locos and NPCs/strengtheners get coupled and uncoupled, both in the cassette yard and on the layout, something non-fiddly and magnetic appeals. 

[Johan DC]

14 hours ago, Schooner said:

🤣 then I'll stop messing about with search functions and just go and find the thing!

 

 

...all the way back on the previous page

Looks great

 

3rd radius was deemed functional

but doubts were raised regarding maximum length of rakes relying on such couplings. Understandably.

 

So it looks like, if using both products straight out the box, then R3 is off the table and No good for a twin-track-to-Aching-Constable WNR.

If I can help with testing a rake on R3 or R4, let me know and I'll see what can be done. The magnetic chain couplings came with a couple of extra magnets to make it a bit longer. 

[Schooner]

5 hours ago, Donw said:

Headshunts have the functions of avoiding the need for a trap to protect the main and also allowing shunting to be done while a train is on the way.  Say the next station is a good 10 mins away with getting the route set up with bells codes etc, tablet machines you are going to have the main clear right through to the platform at least 15 mins before the train will arrive. If however you have a headshunt and can keep the main clear you can carry on shunting.

 

This is all useful stuff, thanks. I'd just point out that the issue wasn't 'headshunt or no', but whether the revised throat negates the need for one - are the operational implications of a headshunt covered? The branch has no direct access to the yard, but then the headshunt had no direct access to the loop and shed road before. Could cuts be marshalled via the branch whilst a train arrives on the main? Could the yard be shunted via the main whilst a train arrives on the branch? Does this mean we can do without the headshunt as a separate bit of track?

 

@Johan DC that's a kind offer. I've no direct involvement but would be interested to see what results you got, if it wasn't too much trouble to set up and photograph.

[Donw]

Yes you could use the branch line for marshalling trains while something is approaching on the main with most layout. The requirement is for the main to be clear into the platform and with 440 yards clear ahead. With any lines joining the main to be protected by traps or turnout diverging away from the main. The 440 yards ahead means that a train cannot run into both platforms at once on single track lines as it is needed in case of overruns.  In practice in busy stations I think a headshunt would be more likely.  However if the branch cannot be reached from the yard without crossing the main or just using a small part of it that would be a no.  The snippet of BM above indicates that the access to the branch crosses the main so whilst you could hold a train on the branch you could not do any shunting moves crossing the main once a train is accepted on the main from either direction.

 

Don

[Nearholmer]

At CA, given all the congestion threats, wouldn’t one install an outer home to reduce this problem?

Edited March 26, 2023 by Nearholmer

[Schooner]

11 hours ago, Donw said:

The snippet of BM above

Ah! I think we might have been at cross purposes. BM, from a design PoV, is easy - it can have a headshunt or not and it makes little odds. I imagine the branch to Fakeney (the...fork of the branch which crosses the main lines) would be fairly quiet but I think a separate headshunt, with 'kickback', is a Good Idea for a couple of reasons.

 

The more difficult one is CA:

The headshunt came off a double slip outside the cabin and followed the main line curve. Functional, but ugly all round. For reference, at the bottom, left to right, are the back siding, shed road, loading dock, platform, loop, and engine shed road. It strikes me as a quite a model train formation* but it gets you a lot of options without a lot convoluted track. Mind you, maybe that's just the thing for CA and its high turnover?

 

*I've just realiesd it absolutely is, it's a Minories🤣

Edited March 27, 2023 by Schooner

[Donw]

11 hours ago, Schooner said:

Ah! I think we might have been at cross purposes. BM, from a design PoV, is easy - it can have a headshunt or not and it makes little odds. I imagine the branch to Fakeney (the...fork of the branch which crosses the main lines) would be fairly quiet but I think a separate headshunt, with 'kickback', is a Good Idea for a couple of reasons.

 

The more difficult one is CA:

The headshunt came off a double slip outside the cabin and followed the main line curve. Functional, but ugly all round. For reference, at the bottom, left to right, are the back siding, shed road, loading dock, platform, loop, and engine shed road. It strikes me as a quite a model train formation* but it gets you a lot of options without a lot convoluted track. Mind you, maybe that's just the thing for CA and its high turnover?

 

*I've just realiesd it absolutely is, it's a Minories🤣

 

I was explaining a principle and the bit of BM showed it. In CA you have the same issue the Branch is on the opposite side of the main. so the headshunt is useful. I would however have a crossover where it rejoins the main with a short stub to the buffers. Much safer avoids the risk of a driver shunting going too far. mind you without the crossover you would need a trap point anyway if you didn;t have the crossover.

Don

[Schooner]

Existing

 

Simplified stage 1

 

Simplified stage 2

 

Cake both carried and consumed?

 

Just a first pass at cutting out some of the visual complexity without making things too inconvenient to try to get it to sit more neatly between CA and BM.

 

Is less more?

 

Is it good, bad or indifferent that the headshunt has now become something more akin to an exchange siding?

 

In Context

More massaging to try to get a decent balance between aisle and acreage. Does that look like a liveable and workable spce? Does it leave enough space for the settlements of CA (along LHS), AM (around the gasworks) and BM (into the lower RH corner)?

Edited March 30, 2023 by Schooner
Context

[Edwardian]

17 hours ago, Schooner said:

Existing

 

Simplified stage 1

 

Simplified stage 2

 

Cake both carried and consumed?

 

Just a first pass at cutting out some of the visual complexity without making things too inconvenient to try to get it to sit more neatly between CA and BM.

 

Is less more?

 

Is it good, bad or indifferent that the headshunt has now become something more akin to an exchange siding?

 

In Context

More massaging to try to get a decent balance between aisle and acreage. Does that look like a liveable and workable spce? Does it leave enough space for the settlements of CA (along LHS), AM (around the gasworks) and BM (into the lower RH corner)?

 

OK, so I'm just confused at this point, prototypical track plans and their operational implications not being a strong point. 

 

Faced with this, I retreat back to the original concept I had.

 

The station is intended to be a WNR version of the GER terminus at Aldeburgh ....

 

 

... but in mirror image ....

 

 

.... and with the trademark WNR loop closing turntable ....

 

 

.... and combined with a maltings siding based on Dereham ......

 

 

... but in mirror image ....

 

 

.... with the kick-back siding extended to serve the gas works ....