Castle Aching

[Edwardian]

1 minute ago, Compound2632 said:

 

Some did, some didn't. But by and large it was the larger companies, with works equipped for mass-production, that used standardised lengths, which even with standardised compartment widths could produce a good variety of designs - luggage / brake compartments being wonderfully elastic things. The smaller line, building carriages in small batches and more likely to be using the trade, even if to their own drawings, had less to gain from standardisation. The Cambrian is a wonderful example. 

 

Yes some did, but I feel that the WNR had little need for that approach, so I don't see I'm bound to the Hattons length if I can cut it down by a foot or even two as required. 

 

What companies were often keener on than standard body lengths were standard wheelbases, so I do not see the need to alter these if it is otherwise practical to knock the odd millimeter off each end. 

[Compound2632]

2 minutes ago, Edwardian said:

Yes some did, but I feel that the WNR had little need for that approach, so I don't see I'm bound to the Hattons length if I can cut it down by a foot or even two as required. 

 

Yes, I was intending to imply that the west Norfolk was at the Cambrian end of the scale. 

 

But even a secondary service on the North Western around the turn of the century could be a cavalcade of 6-wheelers of assorted lengths, widths, and heights, with 30 ft and 32 ft carriages of Richard Bore's 1880s design along with the up-to-the-minute 31' 1" carriages.

Edited September 1, 2022 by Compound2632

[Edwardian]

1 minute ago, uax6 said:

You might be able to do it with a soldered up screw coupling with a pin sticking up behind the other coaches bufferbeam (a la Tony Wright) with the vac hose being a length of black elastic with micro magnet glued to the end.

Ort if you are flush, theres the cast Bill Bedford ones.

Andy G

 

You know that's made me think, and I mist investigate Tony Wrights method.

 

Could it mean, for instance, that I could mount a flexible hose in a loco buffer beam, secured via mirco magnets, that could then be 'coupled via the same method to the outer end of a coach set along with the screw coupling?

 

Tedious, fiddly but it could look so good! 

[Edwardian]

2 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

 

Yes, I was intending to imply that the west Norfolk was at the Cambrian end of the scale. 

 

Very much, yes, so I think we agree that variation in coach lengths is credibly prototypical for the WNR.

[Compound2632]

A browse through the CamKits catalogue gives the flavour! 

http://www.taffvale.wales/camkits/CamKits Catalogue 144dpi.pdf

[Edwardian]

19 minutes ago, Edwardian said:

 

Good points.

 

Perhaps it would help to explain the 'design philosophy' for WNR 6-wheelers. My thoughts are:

 

- Uniformity of length: The Hattons coaches are to a uniform length. That was often not the case with prototype companies, precisely because compartment widths of different classes tended to dictate differences in frame length. Some minor variation in coach length is, thus, prototypical as well as, IMHO, pleasing to the eye.   

 

- 31' and shorter: Having said that, the Hattons length, 31' I believe, is a good one. Ideal, I'd say, for the little WNR, as it puts their coaches just sub the 32'-34' lengths seen on companies like the GER and GNR.  This is why, should I would prefer a 5-compt. third under 31' to a 6-compartment one (like the GER's) over 31', though I would not rule out the latter.

 

- Other Third configurations:

(a) I would not rule out a 6-compartment third, extending the frames, though that is not my preference. Query whether the even narrower third compartments on the 4-wheel stock would help here. I'm not sure, however, that I want to shrink third compartments on mainline stock.

(b) I also have considered both centre brake Thirds (though I don't really need them); and,

(c) A luggage third. If I could insert a luggage compartment within a 5-compartment third, the resultant asymmetry could be quite pleasing and if, as you suggest, that could stretch it to a 31' frame, that would be well-worth doing. I wouldn't want all thirds to be such luggage thirds, however, so at least half of them would need to be shortened framed 5-compartment thirds.

 

- The Hattons 5-compartment coach. This would make an ideal second for the WNR and I could run a first (perhaps a luggage first to make up the 31' length and provide for 1st and 2nd uggage) and a second in lieu of two luggage composites. My problem is how to do a first. I will check to see if the 4-compartment 4-wheel coach offers anything wider.

 

Thus, in an ideal world I would still do all the variants outlined in my previous post, but would add a first and second and a luggage third.   

 

If I were to attempt 2 sets instead of jus one, that would allow the first and second to be utilised, but I could have a third and a luggage third in a single set.   

 

I do have a fall back for thirds and firsts, using the Horny coaches or just bodies.

 

The GWR style commode handles are simple to remove, it's the lack of bolections that is problematic, otherwise the configurations are good for these two classes of coach and I would have no compunction chopping them up for just the sides (everything in the Hattons coaches being so much better):

 

 

 

[uax6]

2 minutes ago, Edwardian said:

 

You know that's made me think, and I mist investigate Tony Wrights method.

 

Could it mean, for instance, that I could mount a flexible hose in a loco buffer beam, secured via mirco magnets, that could then be 'coupled via the same method to the outer end of a coach set along with the screw coupling?

 

Tedious, fiddly but it could look so good! 

Its quite hard to find Tonys method on his thread, but it is essentially a fixed bit of wire on the floor of one carriage that has a hook at the far end that just hooks behind the buffer beam of the next one. I'm guessing the buffers keep the coaches apart, but you could put a hole for the hook to sit in (or a slot) in the floor behind the beam. 

 

I can't see the elastic not working on a loco, if it works on coaches it must do!

 

Andy G

 

[Compound2632]

How long are the Hornby 6-wheelers?

[Edwardian]

3 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

How long are the Hornby 6-wheelers?

 

If I can find one, I'll let you know. IIRC I purchased one each of the above types in anticipation of this need. 

[Skinnylinny]

1 hour ago, Edwardian said:

 

I do have a fall back for thirds and firsts, using the Horny [sic] coaches or just bodies.

 

The GWR style commode handles are simple to remove, it's the lack of bolections that is problematic, otherwise the configurations are good for these two classes of coach and I would have no compunction chopping them up for just the sides (everything in the Hattons coaches being so much better):

One wonders if an etched bolection moulding part to fit the Hornby coaches could be produced - it seems that most (all) of the quarter lights are the same size and shape. Add to that the fact that the bolection mouldings could be painted before gluing on, making for a lovely neat edge... I know I would be in the market for some for some of the GSR's 4- and 6-wheel stock!
 

39 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

How long are the Hornby 6-wheelers?

128mm over body (32')

[kingfisher9147]

GRL models are doing flexible magnetic couplings suitable for steam era. Coaches are a pain in length like wagons never have the ones you want. 

[Compound2632]

28 minutes ago, Skinnylinny said:

128mm over body (32')

 

Stroudley has much to answer for.

[Skinnylinny]

2 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

Stroudley has much to answer for.

 

Given that the Hornby 6-wheelers aren't actually models of any Stroudley designs (more... inspired by a combination of Stroudley and Billinton designs, taking many dimensions from the 4-wheelers), I rather suspect someone in Margate has much to answer for!

Edited September 1, 2022 by Skinnylinny

[Compound2632]

1 minute ago, Skinnylinny said:

Given that the Hornby 6-wheelers aren't actually models of any Stroudley designs (more... inspired by a combination of Stroudley and Billinton designs, taking many dimensions from the 4-wheelers), I rather suspect someone in Margate has much to answer for!

 

I think - sniffing the wind really - that both projects started out with Stroudley carriages as their starting point. The Hattons ones moved further away from that starting point. The lack of bolection moldings on the Hornby carriages is a Stroudleyism - although it has to be admitted that it is a feature they have in common with the Triang Great Western clerestories, so one could say there's heritage there!

[Edwardian]

21 minutes ago, kingfisher9147 said:

GRL Models are doing flexible magnetic couplings suitable for steam era. Coaches are a pain in length like wagons never have the ones you want. 

 

 Do you have a link for them, I couldn't find anything useful?

Edited September 1, 2022 by Edwardian

[Edwardian]

Just now, Compound2632 said:

 

I think - sniffing the wind really - that both projects started out with Stroudley carriages as their starting point. The Hattons ones moved further away from that starting point. The lack of bolection moldings on the Hornby carriages is a Stroudleyism - although it has to be admitted that it is a feature they have in common with the Triang Great Western clerestories, so one could say there's heritage there!

 

We know they did. The Hattons drawings I posted still show the air cylinders. We managed to have the 4-wheel length extended from the Stroudley 26' to, IIRC, a more typical 28'. 

 

39 minutes ago, Skinnylinny said:

One wonders if an etched bolection moulding part to fit the Hornby coaches could be produced - it seems that most (all) of the quarter lights are the same size and shape. Add to that the fact that the bolection mouldings could be painted before gluing on, making for a lovely neat edge... I know I would be in the market for some for some of the GSR's 4- and 6-wheel stock!
 

 

Too fiddly for 3D print?

 

Flat etches are not the best for bolections.

 

39 minutes ago, Skinnylinny said:

128mm over body (32')

 

Good, thank you, I'm sure my thinking when I bought a couple last year was I was thinking about a potential body swap with Hattons.

 

In the meantime I forgot the lengths of both Hornby and Hattons coaches!

[Skinnylinny]

1 minute ago, Edwardian said:

Too fiddly for 3D print?

 

Flat etches are not the best for bolections.

More like too thin to print - I was thinking a mostly half-etched frame with some full-thickness raised detail to represent the moulding. Certainly this has been done before on etched carriage kits. For 3D printing I wouldn't want to print anything thinner than half a millimetre (20 thou-ish) and I'd be worried about it warping and getting it off the supports.

[Schooner]

Sorry, wasn't able to post this when written so now it's a bit out of step with the conversation but...

 

On 30/08/2022 at 09:46, Edwardian said:

...but the site is probably too cramped for the junction to look right.

Crook Street. Where there's a will...! Fundamentally I agree, but if it's important to you I think it would be possible with bespoke pointwork. There would remain the challenge of convincing viewblocks, but a) your skills are well up to it and b) it's your railway and you know what the areas represent; the transitions between scenes don't have to convince anyone else :) Maybe your visit to Amberdale will have given extra inspiration in this area, too!

 

On 30/08/2022 at 09:46, Edwardian said:

...do we need all this?

No, not at all :)

 

...but...

 

...the more storage roads in that yard - cassette loops being the most flexible storage road and so the presumed preference - then the less frequently you'll need to attend to it. Four feels like a minimum to me - two for Aching Constable (station and junction), two for Hillingham (station and (GNR?) junction)...?

 

On 30/08/2022 at 19:09, Edwardian said:

Is there a room to put a block in whereby an Achingham branch train can be held if necessary at a signal while the train engine runs round its train and departs on the mainline?  

IIUC (this is not my strong suit) this block could just be the CA home signal? Seems entirely reasonable to leave some space between that signal and the throat proper! I forget the official length between signal and possible hazard, but if it was placed where the two lines come together, about a yard from the platform, that would look about right...? That said, surely it's easier to hold a departure in Achingham until the main line loco has at lest begun its run round?

 

On which: the WNR will be run to a timetable, I think? How do you propose to manage this - train order, or fast clock or...? It has a bearing on required capacities so is worth thinking about, if not already.

 

The throat formation shown was the simplest/shortest I could get to work, and it makes some sense to me to run round via the branch rather than mainline although it looks a bit naff. There are alternatives, but we very quickly run into The Peco Problem of getting pointwork to lie along a decent radius (Achingham Branch radius 860mm as shown, for reference; mainline c.940mm. Not bad, if a little shy of the desired 3'/914mm).

 

Practically it's still simple to add a headshunt, as before, but the aesthetics of the station approach are starting to change significantly...

 

Thoughts

No Gradients I know I know...but, just for interest, a 1% incline of the mainline raises the cassette yard by 25mm. Some vertical separation would make sense of the horizontal separation and of the hillside around which the branch line runs. It would be easily done... :)

 

It was only a throw-away suggestion earlier, but thinking along practical/model railway lines there may be some mileage in swapping the roles of the stations currently labeled Castle Aching and Achingham*.  I don't know what level of revulsion the concept brings on, but it could be a solution to a couple of difficulties with track and traffic and so is perhaps worth thinking through before discarding.

 

*Having the main line run from the cassette yard around in a smooth curve into the station labeled Achingham, and a branch line runs from there around into the station labeled Castle Aching).

 

Anyway, pinch punch, happy almost-Friday everyone!

[Edwardian]

12 hours ago, Schooner said:

 

...the more storage roads in that yard - cassette loops being the most flexible storage road and so the presumed preference - then the less frequently you'll need to attend to it. Four feels like a minimum to me - two for Aching Constable (station and junction), two for Hillingham (station and (GNR?) junction)...?

 

Using the continuous running lines through the cassette yard would be

 

(a) A couple of local passenger sets

(b) A goods service or two

 

Needing to put in and taken out via cassettes would need to be:

 

(a) One or two GER trains

(b) a MGN train

(c) a MR train

(c) a GNR train

(d) any WNR AC-CA/Achingham shuttle service

(e) one or two WNR Bury services

(f) one or two WNR Norwich services

 

So, say 10 regular services. Isn't it really about capacity for storing cassettes rather than the number of roads?

 

I was assuming 2 running lines and room to place two cassettes, so two cassette stub lines. 

 

 

12 hours ago, Schooner said:

IIUC (this is not my strong suit) this block could just be the CA home signal? Seems entirely reasonable to leave some space between that signal and the throat proper! I forget the official length between signal and possible hazard, but if it was placed where the two lines come together, about a yard from the platform, that would look about right...? That said, surely it's easier to hold a departure in Achingham until the main line loco has at lest begun its run round?

 

That sounds reasonable. Given the actual length of of the Achingham branch on the prototype, I'm confident that  passengers wouldn't want to wait there for each CA departure!

 

12 hours ago, Schooner said:

On which: the WNR will be run to a timetable, I think? How do you propose to manage this - train order, or fast clock or...? It has a bearing on required capacities so is worth thinking about, if not already.

 

I don't fancy being slave to a fast clock; I can see that being hurled over the hedge into the sheep field in pretty short order.

 

I had thought to run a timetable as a sequence. But the time at which a train arrives will represent the time it is due to do so!  Very much how the current LNER seems to have solved its scheduling problems.

 

12 hours ago, Schooner said:

The throat formation shown was the simplest/shortest I could get to work, and it makes some sense to me to run round via the branch rather than mainline although it looks a bit naff. There are alternatives, but we very quickly run into The Peco Problem of getting pointwork to lie along a decent radius (Achingham Branch radius 860mm as shown, for reference; mainline c.940mm. Not bad, if a little shy of the desired 3'/914mm).

 

Practically it's still simple to add a headshunt, as before, but the aesthetics of the station approach are starting to change significantly...

 

Simple is good, and I like how you've done it.

 

It would be interesting to see how it looked with a headshunt for the yard just to compare.

 

12 hours ago, Schooner said:

Thoughts

No Gradients I know I know...but, just for interest, a 1% incline of the mainline raises the cassette yard by 25mm. Some vertical separation would make sense of the horizontal separation and of the hillside around which the branch line runs. It would be easily done... :)

 

Like the idea of a slight falling gradient to Achingham and a slight rising one to BM.

 

12 hours ago, Schooner said:

It was only a throw-away suggestion earlier, but thinking along practical/model railway lines there may be some mileage in swapping the roles of the stations currently labeled Castle Aching and Achingham*.  I don't know what level of revulsion the concept brings on, but it could be a solution to a couple of difficulties with track and traffic and so is perhaps worth thinking through before discarding.

 

*Having the main line run from the cassette yard around in a smooth curve into the station labeled Achingham, and a branch line runs from there around into the station labeled Castle Aching).

 

Anyway, pinch punch, happy almost-Friday everyone!

 

I like the idea, but history dictates that CA-BM was built first and Achingham is the branch off that line.

 

Thanks again for all  this great planning.

[kingfisher9147]

https://www.glrailways.co.uk

 

My mistake on the name, here is the correct one. 

Mike 

[Schooner]

15 hours ago, Edwardian said:

It would be interesting to see how it looked with a headshunt for the yard just to compare.

 

 

 

[Annie]

As someone who loves shunting and trip working my vote always goes for putting in a headshunt if it can be fitted in such a way that it won't be a pain to access and use

[Edwardian]

My thanks again to Schooner.

 

Are we happy with this, then?

 

[St Enodoc]

2 hours ago, Edwardian said:

My thanks again to Schooner.

 

Are we happy with this, then?

 

I think so!

[Compound2632]

That's pretty much what I was going to sketch, for the station, but for myself, I would still go for the double junction out in the sticks, as a separate scene. With the double-track approach, it does not need to be too long.