Castle Aching

[Edwardian]

55 minutes ago, Schooner said:

End-of-day brain, so forgive any idiocy, but a few thoughts as the occur:

 

All most helpful, thanks

 

55 minutes ago, Schooner said:

Wall plans sound sensible, and looks like a lovely example to use. I suspect a useful height will make itself known come build, but that seems like the right ballpark.

 

Yes, the main thing being that the Intentio cassette walls look to be of a height that a wall could be made to disguise

 

55 minutes ago, Schooner said:

I'm away from home atm but I can grab some numbers (loaded weight, flex etc) for the cassettes when back if helpful - I can't remember if you have any on hand.

 

Also away from a computer, so what follows is guestimate only:

 

The last design posted made allowance for a 36" Fakeney cassette trough and 66" for the main line. The useful bit of this is that I'm sure there's length enough for an extended carriage shed to take the Fakeney set and the proposed cassettes, which is good.

 

It struck me after I had posted that a 4' cassette did not seem too insane, especially if modified to have two lifting handles inboard of the ends by some inches.  

 

Here is a very robust example by way of illustrating the point (used for HO stock):

 

 

Most interestingly, to test my theory that 45-46" cassettes would be manageable, these are 1125mm, so a little over 44".

 

They are of metal chanel construction, of course, and it might be that the wooden Intentio style could not function well at such lengths.

 

Anyway, your last design posted 36" Fakeney cassette trough is what I think we should stick with, while 66" for the main line trough leaves 57" for the train cassette(s), so the problem is not going to be train lengths, but how long a cassette is practicable.

 

EDIT: Now this was more what I'd had in my mind's eye:

 

 

55 minutes ago, Schooner said:

Add in the option for an occasional 12" boost as desired/required and I think that's all looking pretty doable. The cassettes themselves...only Intentio know! 

 

Passenger rakes are to be (semi-) permanently coupled? There's no mileage in breaking trains down into off-the-shelf cassette lengths?

 

I see passenger trains as running in rakes that will remain more or less constant. 'Tail' traffic may be added or subtracted, but the formations are likely to remain as sets. So, a WNR express would be, say, Luggage Break / First / Second / Third / Third / Break Third, or, Luggage Break / Luggage Composite / Luggage Composite / Third / Third / Break Third. That core 6-coach formation would not generally change.

 

Sometimes a vehicle could be inserted within a formation, so I would say semi-permantly coupled was the right description.

 

 

55 minutes ago, Schooner said:

Long cassettes could be easily (if not cheaply) stiffened with L bar, sure that alone won't be a deal breaker. My 3' long 7mm cassettes (not Intentio) are due for delivery before long, if they're unmanagable I'll report back...but I'm sure I've seen reference to cassettes of up to 6' being reasonable to wield.

 

Yes, due to the wish for semi-permanent sets, if I had to choose, I'd rather keep a single cassette. I would consider steel channel rather than makeup the length with 2 Intentio style wooden ones. 

 

55 minutes ago, Schooner said:

Ummmm what else...oh, yeah, goods train length. I've read, 'tho forget where, apologies, of a layout at least WNR size which included 'scale length' goods trains behind a 28xx. Long story short, these were steadily reduced over time to 20-25 wagons for representing 'long goods trains'. Moral of the story is that I think the WNR won't look deprived if this is about your max train length.

 

Agree

 

55 minutes ago, Schooner said:

And brave yes...possibly even foolish. Mitigations are the very solid landing the cassette has where joins the baseboard proper, and that I've canted the bracket slightly so trains run uphill by a degree or two on the cassette. With those in place I never had any concerns with the security of the long cassettes or their stock. Even so, this was for stress-testing only and those cassettes are for storage and not regular use.

 

/transmission ends.

 

 

 

 

 

Well, you're evidently a better engineer than I'll ever be!

 

 

 

 

Edited December 21, 2023 by Edwardian
Always more

[Donw]

You dont want trains too long it just highlights the shortness of the line between stations. If when stood at a normal operation point you cannot see both ends of a train it looks long. 

Fakeney is not a big industrial place so 6 or 7 wagons sounds reasonable to me . If say a 20 wagon freight arrives at BM   that could be 6 for F  8 to BS and 6 for the BM yard one or two in BM yard added to go on sounds sensible to me. Alternatively you could have two 12 wagons freights arriving at BM with the 7 for F spread over two trains. Depends on what suits you.

 

Don

[Schooner]

@Donw raises a good point - is it fun to have to deal with 25-wagon trains? 

 

FWIW when designing layouts for myself I've settled on about

• 3 wagons - trip
• 6 wagons - local
• 12 wagons - main

These seem short, but in the context of a model railway they look about right and in terms of playing trains feel about right. Different enough to be obvious but not so long as to get tedious to manage. If space was absolutely no issue these might be pairs of wagons (24 wagons, but handled as a dozen pairs) perhaps. 

 

Where is the serving yard for the various destinations out of BM? BM itself, or when they come on-scene are trains already marshalled into cuts for each station (at Aching Constable, presumably)? Aware that shunting is not a priority beyond a daily pick-up goods. How would this be routed on the current layout plan?

 

In my head (and so probably the layout as presented) network-bound traffic from the visible layout is assembled at BM for AC, no need to marshal just assemble. Traffic from the national network would, I assume, arrive in the same order it departed, meaning wagons would be in cuts by station anyway...? I also assume that most goods traffic is not internal to the WNR, and so does need to head to/from the national network via AC Jnc, and that in terms of an operating session will be less of a focus than the various intra-WNR passenger services? To me this suggests that, whilst BM is the obvious hub for all F and BS branch goods traffic, perhaps it runs direct to/from AC? This leaves BM 'free' to handle the reversing traffic from CA and AM. Correct or correction required?

 

Worth even less but for completeness' sake, thinking of passenger services, I've settled on 2 coaches for branch/shuttle; 3-4 for locals; 5-6 for main/express as core trains. For sure more might be nice, but to my mind offer diminishing returns. Length of each vehicle seems to matter comparatively little to general impression, which is fun.

 

Just a single opinion, and of course we'll all have our own reasoning and answers, but I'd suggest that the proposed train lengths are adequate at the very least :)

[Edwardian]

1 hour ago, Donw said:

You dont want trains too long it just highlights the shortness of the line between stations. If when stood at a normal operation point you cannot see both ends of a train it looks long. 

 

A good point.  Many moons ago I read somewhere that one should aspire to a scenic run at least three times the length of one's longest train.

 

If one cannot have such a  run either side of a station, one should have it to one side, rather than split the available space into two shorter runs.

 

This is effectively what we deliver in this plan. I say 'we' because it has long been my wish to site BM on a curve in that corner, but it was Brother Schooner who has demonstrated it can fit and made a proper plan of it. 

 

He will be able to confirm the distance from A to B, the mainline run must be getting on for circa 15'. 

 

 

If the longest passenger trains are 6-coach expresses, that's about 43" to  46" depending on the length of  the carriages and engines used. If from time to time a horse box and carriage truck are added, perhaps at a cost of 8", then the maximum length is still unlikely to exceed four and a half feet (54"). 

 

That is well within the one third rule, and I do not see why goods trains need be any longer. 

 

Another point is that, visually, I want even the longest passenger train to sit comfortable within the margins of the island platform faces at BM. If I can squeeze 60" (5') between ramps, even the longest train should not entirely fill the available space.

 

1 hour ago, Donw said:

Fakeney is not a big industrial place so 6 or 7 wagons sounds reasonable to me . If say a 20 wagon freight arrives at BM   that could be 6 for F  8 to BS and 6 for the BM yard one or two in BM yard added to go on sounds sensible to me. Alternatively you could have two 12 wagons freights arriving at BM with the 7 for F spread over two trains. Depends on what suits you.

 

Don

 

I agree. For Fakeney, I do think 6-7 wagons with a tank engine would be the norm, so I should be fine with the 3' cassette trough as already drawn, with a capacity for 8 wagons and a tender engine. 

 

12 minutes ago, Schooner said:

@Donw raises a good point - is it fun to have to deal with 25-wagon trains? 

 

No!

 

12 minutes ago, Schooner said:

 

Where is the serving yard for the various destinations out of BM? BM itself, or when they come on-scene are trains already marshalled into cuts for each station (at Aching Constable, presumably)? Aware that shunting is not a priority beyond a daily pick-up goods. How would this be routed on the current layout plan?

 

Now that is the question

 

12 minutes ago, Schooner said:

In my head (and so probably the layout as presented) network-bound traffic from the visible layout is assembled at BM for AC, no need to marshal just assemble.

 

Yes. Outbound traffic from CA and Achingham would need to me made up at BM. Potentially it's added to traffic from  Fakeney and the Birchoverhams, but there could, for instance, just be a return goods trip from Fakeney to AC.

 

12 minutes ago, Schooner said:

Traffic from the national network would, I assume, arrive in the same order it departed, meaning wagons would be in cuts by station anyway...? I also assume that most goods traffic is not internal to the WNR, and so does need to head to/from the national network via AC Jnc, and that in terms of an operating session will be less of a focus than the various intra-WNR passenger services?

 

 

Yes, all true

 

12 minutes ago, Schooner said:

To me this suggests that, whilst BM is the obvious hub for all F and BS branch goods traffic, perhaps it runs direct to/from AC? This leaves BM 'free' to handle the reversing traffic from CA and AM. Correct or correction required?

 

I think you might have nailed the answer there. Traffic to and from CA and Achingham has to reverve in and out of BM, so there is an opportunity for marsahlling. This suggests that cuts to and from BM itself could be picked up or dropped in the process.

 

Goods traffic could then be direct between AC and the lines north of BM.  

 

12 minutes ago, Schooner said:

Worth even less but for completeness' sake, thinking of passenger services, I've settled on 2 coaches for branch/shuttle; 3-4 for locals; 5-6 for main/express as core trains. For sure more might be nice, but to my mind offer diminishing returns. Length of each vehicle seems to matter comparatively little to general impression, which is fun.

 

Well, I have detailed the core express sets as six 6-wheelers at 35-37". WNR mainline local sets are likely to comprise five fairly short 1880s 4-wheelers that will probably average about 26' o/b, so that gives you something equivalent to five Stroudley 4-wheelers.  

 

CA and Fakeney core branch sets are intended to comprise just four 1870s 4-wheelers, that are even shorter than Stroudleys on average and amount to something like 17". There must be room for a strengthening Third on Saturdays and Market Days, but I hope such a small train would not overwhelm the route between CA and Achingham.

 

Wolfringham branch set is only three carriages of even shorter 1860s stock!

 

So, from the maximum express set, each step down in the status of a service means both fewer and older (therefore shorter) carriages. 

 

 

12 minutes ago, Schooner said:

Just a single opinion, and of course we'll all have our own reasoning and answers, but I'd suggest that the proposed train lengths are adequate at the very least :)

 

Yes, I think moreover that they are adequate with an adequate margin for additional ad hoc vehicles from time to time as traffic demands.

[St Enodoc]

31 minutes ago, Edwardian said:

 

A good point.  Many moons ago I read somewhere that one should aspire to a scenic run at least three times the length of one's longest train.

 

If one cannot have such a  run either side of a station, one should have it to one side, rather than split the available space into two shorter runs.

 

This is effectively what we deliver in this plan. I say 'we' because it has long been my wish to site BM on a curve in that corner, but it was Brother Schooner who has demonstrated it can fit and made a proper plan of it. 

 

He will be able to confirm the distance from A to B, the mainline run must be getting on for circa 15'. 

 

 

If the longest passenger trains are 6-coach expresses, that's about 43" to  46" depending on the length of  the carriages and engines used. If from time to time a horse box and carriage truck are added, perhaps at a cost of 8", then the maximum length is still unlikely to exceed four and a half feet (54"). 

 

That is well within the one third rule, and I do not see why goods trains need be any longer. 

 

Another point is that, visually, I want even the longest passenger train to sit comfortable within the margins of the island platform faces at BM. If I can squeeze 60" (5') between ramps, even the longest train should not entirely fill the available space.

 

 

I agree. For Fakeney, I do think 6-7 wagons with a tank engine would be the norm, so I should be fine with the 3' cassette trough as already drawn, with a capacity for 8 wagons and a tender engine. 

 

 

No!

 

 

Now that is the question

 

 

Yes. Outbound traffic from CA and Achingham would need to me made up at BM. Potentially it's added to traffic from  Fakeney and the Birchoverhams, but there could, for instance, just be a return goods trip from Fakeney to AC.

 

 

Yes, all true

 

 

I think you might have nailed the answer there. Traffic to and from CA and Achingham has to reverve in and out of BM, so there is an opportunity for marsahlling. This suggests that cuts to and from BM itself could be picked up or dropped in the process.

 

Goods traffic could then be direct between AC and the lines north of BM.  

 

 

Well, I have detailed the core express sets as six 6-wheelers at 35-37". WNR mainline local sets are likely to comprise five fairly short 1880s 4-wheelers that will probably average about 26' o/b, so that gives you something equivalent to five Stroudley 4-wheelers.  

 

CA and Fakeney core branch sets are intended to comprise just four 1870s 4-wheelers, that are even shorter than Stroudleys on average and amount to something like 17". There must be room for a strengthening Third on Saturdays and Market Days, but I hope such a small train would not overwhelm the route between CA and Achingham.

 

Wolfringham branch set is only three carriages of even shorter 1860s stock!

 

So, from the maximum express set, each step down in the status of a service means both fewer and older (therefore shorter) carriages. 

 

 

 

Yes, I think moreover that they are adequate with an adequate margin for additional ad hoc vehicles from time to time as traffic demands.

I think he's got it! By George, he's got it!

[Edwardian]

9 minutes ago, St Enodoc said:

I think he's got it! By George, he's got it!

 

Yes, well of course. all these calculations go to pot in 1905 when the WNR hosts a Grand Calvacade to celebrate it's half-century. 

 

 

[Compound2632]

On 20/12/2023 at 22:41, Edwardian said:

besides, Brother Compound says I'm not allowed one of thes 'cos my railway isn't important enough ...

 

 

Can we have a whip-round to buy him a 10-ton hand crane?

[Schooner]

Boooooring!

 

[Annie]

10 hours ago, Schooner said:

Boooooring!

I do hope you're not calling the Broad Gauge 'boring' .

 

Seriously though that goods yard crane is a magnificent thing and i'm wondering if any other photos of it survive.

 

Edited December 22, 2023 by Annie
Um.........

[Schooner]

3 hours ago, Annie said:

I do hope you're not calling the Broad Gauge 'boring' .

 Quite the reverse! It's the most interesting set up I could think of a photo for off the top of my head, posted for inspiration :)

 

This the only photo of the Bradford on Avon jib crane with the shelter (and of the gantry crane) I know of, but recall seeing similar elsewhere. Will have a hunt and pop any fun findings in your thread :)

[Annie]

1 hour ago, Schooner said:

Quite the reverse! It's the most interesting set up I could think of a photo for off the top of my head, posted for inspiration :)

Definitely a fascinating photo.  It's one that I like too.

 

1 hour ago, Schooner said:

This the only photo of the Bradford on Avon jib crane with the shelter (and of the gantry crane) I know of, but recall seeing similar elsewhere. Will have a hunt and pop any fun findings in your thread :)

Yes please.  I was hoping that if more information came to light I might be able get Steve Flanders to have a look at it as a subject for a digital model.

[Edwardian]

[ChrisN]

Have a good Christmas and hope all goes well in the New Year.

[Annie]

A very merry Christmas to you and yours James and many blessings for the New Year.

[Edwardian]

4 minutes ago, Annie said:

A very merry Christmas to you and yours James and many blessings for the New Year.

 

And to you and yours, Annie, Thank you.

[Edwardian]

13 hours ago, ChrisN said:

Have a good Christmas and hope all goes well in the New Year.

 

Thank you, Chris, and you

Edited December 25, 2023 by Edwardian

[Donw]

Have a great Christmas and all the best for the new year to you all. I like the Church James.

 

Don

[Edwardian]

56 minutes ago, Donw said:

Have a great Christmas and all the best for the new year to you all. I like the Church James.

 

Don

 

Thank you, Don

 

It's the Scalescenes church using the flint texture, so very much a match for other CA buildings. I have had it for sometime in download form with the intention of using parts thereof for St Tabitha's, possibly trying to do it in perspective form.

 

This example, however, is the downloaded kit built as God and Scalescenes intended, and I thought I could use it for St Tabs pending a more ambitious attempt at the subject.

 

Edited December 25, 2023 by Edwardian
missing word

[Northroader]

[Buhar]

Parishioners all, merry Christmas.  Without exception, you're a lovely bunch to exchange pixels with.

 

Alan

[Edwardian]

15 minutes ago, Buhar said:

Parishioners all, merry Christmas.  Without exception, you're a lovely bunch to exchange pixels with.

 

Alan

 

Hear, hear!

 

 

[CKPR]

I do like St. Tabitha's (formerly St. Tabitha's & St. Samantha's), although I always presumed that Castle Aching contained the parish of St. Trinians. 

[figworthy]

23 hours ago, CKPR said:

I do like St. Tabitha's (formerly St. Tabitha's & St. Samantha's), although I always presumed that Castle Aching contained the parish of St. Trinians. 

 

I think that is an interesting proposition.

 

https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=17/54.40084/-1.70802

 

(OK, not a parish, but a hall).

 

Adrian

[Edwardian]

1 hour ago, figworthy said:

 

I think that is an interesting proposition.

 

https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=17/54.40084/-1.70802

 

(OK, not a parish, but a hall).

 

Adrian

 

My neck of the woods, too...

 

[uax6]

Looks like the Ostrich at CA is about to close:

https://www.edp24.co.uk/news/24005567.ostrich-pub-castle-acre-sale-greene-king/

 

Know any landlords?

 

Merry New Year to all.

Andy G