Painted myself into a corner?

[Denbridge]

Dymented.2a.jpg

 

Dymented.2b.jpg

 

Dymented.b.jpg

 

Dymented.jpg

You may also want to consider adding trees at the RH end to add a visual break from the adjacent mainline station.

[mightbe]

I would make it a single platform station personally, with minimal structures as others suggest.

[Philou]

Thanks chaps,

 

Good ideas. Sorry Harlequin, it look as if this version is likely to be the way to go.

 

As I have a few months worth of hard labour ahead of me before I can tackle the layout proper, there is time for further thought and tweaking to be considered - so no door closing at the moment. I shall have plenty of questions to ask regarding prototypical pointwork (I made a basic error on my module that I shan't repeat), questions regarding signalling (I have little knowledge in that regard) and perhaps as importantly, ground and shunting signals - I know absolutely nothing about those.

 

Then there will be wiring to be considered - as I'm going DCC - it is two wires in and two wires out (basically) - but questions will arise - do I break it up anyway into sections? Blocks? I can't remember what the correct term is at the moment . And then electrofrogs - is that difficult? Do motors come with the SPDT switch incorporated (not having PECO ones - something more akin to Cobalt or Tortoise despite the expense). Can you guide me to some appropriate topics or threads?

 

And then there's stock to run - Brassey and The Stationmaster have been helpful - so thanks for that information too.

 

Feel free to come back with comments or further ideas and observations.

 

I shall be back regularly to let you how I'm getting on with the works - and there will be a huge fanfare and much blowing of trumpets when I start in the barn.

 

Update regarding the stairs - had a bit of a nightmare two days ago, one of the treads pre-made, split along the glued joint. Movement along the grain was stronger than the glued joint and had to be re-done. It's all sorted and in place. Tomorrow, I'm out of the quarter turn and on the home run.

 

During the week, the scaffolding is arriving and will be erected for me to tackle the old render and re-pointing of the barn frontage. At least a month's work ahead as I can only do about 1m² a day .

 

Cheers,

 

Philip

[Brassey]

... questions regarding signalling (I have little knowledge in that regard) and perhaps as importantly, ground and shunting signals - I know absolutely nothing about those.

 

Then there will be wiring to be considered - as I'm going DCC - it is two wires in and two wires out (basically) - but questions will arise - do I break it up anyway into sections? Blocks? I can't remember what the correct term is at the moment . And then electrofrogs - is that difficult? Do motors come with the SPDT switch incorporated (not having PECO ones - something more akin to Cobalt or Tortoise despite the expense). Can you guide me to some appropriate topics or threads?

 

And then there's stock to run - Brassey and The Stationmaster have been helpful - so thanks for that information too.

 

Cheers,

 

Philip

 

Pontrilas signalling diagram is here: https://www.s-r-s.org.uk/html/gwt/S2252.htm

 

Ledbury is here: https://www.s-r-s.org.uk/html/gws/S2620.htm

 

Here's a flavour of the carriage stock but not sure which period you are modelling:

 

 

NB: X = corridor

[Philou]

@ Brassey,

 

What can I say? Thank you for the stock movement sheet - it's the first time I have seen anything like that. Unfortunately regarding periods - I have stock, in varying quantities, to cover from 1900 to 2017. I happen to have mostly GWR/BR(W)/Privatised with a smattering of other regions including electrics (2EPB, EM1 and 2 - don't ask). A bit of a magpie. I only collected for the 'big' layout without a thought of what era and which area. For example, Kernows have just advised that the Bulleid 1Co-Co1 is on its way - I mean, how can I justify that on the layout!! Lost me way in the fog, guv?

 

I could probably run a few goods trains through as I have plenty of pre-1948 PO wagons that are mainly from the South Wales area and a ton of yet unbuilt/unpainted Airfix (yes still marked at 35p on the boxes) that could perhaps be disguised a bit.

 

It looks like for the sake of authenticity, I'm going to have to do some research and get a few LNWR bits and pieces so that at least some prototypical movements can take place. 'What's that wallet? You're not feeling well? Oh dear, so sad, too bad, never mind'.

 

Thanks for the signalling diagrams - I had some similar but not as detailed - so I'll have a look at the site.

 

Regards,

 

Philip

[The Stationmaster]

Thanks chaps,

 

Good ideas. Sorry Harlequin, it look as if this version is likely to be the way to go.

 

As I have a few months worth of hard labour ahead of me before I can tackle the layout proper, there is time for further thought and tweaking to be considered - so no door closing at the moment. I shall have plenty of questions to ask regarding prototypical pointwork (I made a basic error on my module that I shan't repeat), questions regarding signalling (I have little knowledge in that regard) and perhaps as importantly, ground and shunting signals - I know absolutely nothing about those.

 

Then there will be wiring to be considered - as I'm going DCC - it is two wires in and two wires out (basically) - but questions will arise - do I break it up anyway into sections? Blocks? I can't remember what the correct term is at the moment . And then electrofrogs - is that difficult? Do motors come with the SPDT switch incorporated (not having PECO ones - something more akin to Cobalt or Tortoise despite the expense). Can you guide me to some appropriate topics or threads?

 

And then there's stock to run - Brassey and The Stationmaster have been helpful - so thanks for that information too.

 

Feel free to come back with comments or further ideas and observations.

 

I shall be back regularly to let you how I'm getting on with the works - and there will be a huge fanfare and much blowing of trumpets when I start in the barn.

 

Update regarding the stairs - had a bit of a nightmare two days ago, one of the treads pre-made, split along the glued joint. Movement along the grain was stronger than the glued joint and had to be re-done. It's all sorted and in place. Tomorrow, I'm out of the quarter turn and on the home run.

 

During the week, the scaffolding is arriving and will be erected for me to tackle the old render and re-pointing of the barn frontage. At least a month's work ahead as I can only do about 1m² a day .

 

Cheers,

 

Philip

 

A lot of questions in there.

 

DCC I understand (I'm not a user) needs to be broken up into power zones to help with fault finding etc.  The DCC Concepts website might help in that resect and there is an RMweb member who works for them.

 

I much prefer 'live frog' points and recommend separate switching for reliability but things will be a bit different with DCC I suspect - again consult a DCC expert.

[Philou]

@ The Stationmaster,

 

Thank you for the reply regarding DCC - I wasn't really seeking too much information at this stage - nowhere yet for the layout to reside - but they were rather questions that in my mind will need answers once the detailed track plans are completed.

 

However, I do have a question for you (and anyone else who might like to chip in):

 

You will recall that you quite liked at one time, the plan that had the two distinct branches. I think we now have a near-definitive plan with the access to the storage/fiddle yard/traverser taken from the Ledbury Tunnel side. Do you think it worthwhile that I recreate the two branches as separate entities rather than rolled up into 'Dymented'? With the storage area to the east there may well be room on the western side for such a proposition.

 

Your thoughts would be welcome.

 

Philip

[The Stationmaster]

@ The Stationmaster,

 

Thank you for the reply regarding DCC - I wasn't really seeking too much information at this stage - nowhere yet for the layout to reside - but they were rather questions that in my mind will need answers once the detailed track plans are completed.

 

However, I do have a question for you (and anyone else who might like to chip in):

 

You will recall that you quite liked at one time, the plan that had the two distinct branches. I think we now have a near-definitive plan with the access to the storage/fiddle yard/traverser taken from the Ledbury Tunnel side. Do you think it worthwhile that I recreate the two branches as separate entities rather than rolled up into 'Dymented'? With the storage area to the east there may well be room on the western side for such a proposition.

 

Your thoughts would be welcome.

 

Philip

 

Interesting idea but what I would think might be more feasible is to keep the Dymented idea but take one of the branches off it to its own terminus/fiddle yard - if you have the space.  I suspect if you tried to do it for both you might run into problem with levels and/or just plain lack of space.  it might also depend on how big an operator pool you might, or might not, have to call on in that creating what would amount to a branch terminus would need an additional operator to get the best out of it.

[Denbridge]

@ The Stationmaster,

 

Thank you for the reply regarding DCC - I wasn't really seeking too much information at this stage - nowhere yet for the layout to reside - but they were rather questions that in my mind will need answers once the detailed track plans are completed.

 

However, I do have a question for you (and anyone else who might like to chip in):

 

You will recall that you quite liked at one time, the plan that had the two distinct branches. I think we now have a near-definitive plan with the access to the storage/fiddle yard/traverser taken from the Ledbury Tunnel side. Do you think it worthwhile that I recreate the two branches as separate entities rather than rolled up into 'Dymented'? With the storage area to the east there may well be room on the western side for such a proposition.

 

Your thoughts would be welcome.

 

Philip

the only thing I would say is beware of over complicating matters. Your existing favoured plan is going to take a lot of building, which I imagine you will be doing single handed. I see so many grand designs that end up never finished and often scrapped because the builder has over stretched himself.

[Philou]

@ Stationmaster @Denbridge,

 

Thanks for the observations - you are probably right - KISS it is.

 

Regards,

 

Philip

[Harlequin]

Hi Philou,

I've been thinking about your layout design, thinking about what the Stationmaster said and trying to find a way to slot everything together a bit more comfortably. (You may have noticed that I posted an attempt but then took it down again because it wasn't good enough.)

I think I have finally hit upon a good solution so I hope you don't mind me posting it here. Please just treat it as another suggestion - further ideas for the melting pot.

These are the issues I see with the plan in post #72:

• Plan #72 has an expanse of scenery over the fiddle yard access triangle with no direct railway interest.
• No simple scenic run
• No double-track across the fiddle yard access triangle - no possibility of running counter-directional trains. No means for trains to pass without entering the fiddle yard (and thus changing direction). A bit difficult for long distance trains to run continuously.
• The two stations face each other so that down and up lines become connected, as the Stationmaster noted.
• Not enough room for a real station at "Dymented".
• Dymented is not in a scene of it's own - double track running lines unrealistically nearby.
• Ledbury viaduct has unrealistic single track bridge or mini-viaduct behind it.
• Traverser may be too big to engineer reliably and takes up a lot of room in the operating well.
• Trackwork compromised by baseboards.
• Gradients and clearances very tight.

I think I can address all of those issues by running a high level line above the technical area that feeds the fiddle yard (as previously suggested), adjusting things to make access easier under the high-level scene and replacing traverser with turntable fiddle yard.

So here is the new design idea:

Design points:

• Railway on four sides - no "wasted" baseboard area (that's not the right word but you know what I mean)
• Double track across the fiddle yard access with passing loops for more flexible running and possibly continuous running (depending on how Ledbury tunnel is set up)
• Simpler presentation - no lines visibly crossing each other or branch lines running uncomfortably near main lines in scenic areas
• A purely scenic run for simple double track main line: Across Ledbury viaduct, through countryside (not in deep cuttings...), through the short tunnel into Pontrilas - to show off your Kings and Castles!
• By turning Ledbury around it's down line connects to Pontrilas down, and up to up (obviously). This also has the advantage that the "toe" of Ledbury station is connected to the fiddle yard, as in plan #72.
• Both branch lines turn to the left, as per the prototypes, and yet are connected...
• Plenty of room for a simple branch line station, in it's own quiet scene - something like Clifford: just a passing loop, a siding, a platform and a water tower in countryside :-)
• Plenty of room for branch line to climb above main lines with easy inclines and clearances.
• Turntable fiddle yard takes less space, probably easier to engineer than a big traverser, doesn't need parallel feed lines (so can be pushed closer to baseboards), can turn whole trains, inc. engine and brake vans/ brake coaches.
• More usable space in operating well.
• Gloucester branch line turns away from the main line just outside Ledbury station - a better representation of the prototype.
• Golden valley branch line climbs over hills, as the prototype did - I believe all stations on the line had greater altitude than Pontrilas.
• Baseboards arranged to suit the track. Ledbury turntable fits on the board! One access hatch needed where baseboard width > 1200mm.
• You can reach under the upper level branch line boards to access the main circuit track and pointwork below.
• Large radius turns for mainline track where it's visible (min radius 900mm elsewhere)
• Min branch line radius 600mm (necessary compromise and I feel that's OK for branch line traffic)
• Note that because the Gloucester branch line turns 180degrees and connects to the Golden Valley branch they form a reversing loop, which may or may not be useful...

[Edit: Earlier Gloucester and Worcester confusion has now been corrected.)

Edited February 21, 2018 by Harlequin

[Philou]

@ Harlequin

 

Thanks for the plan! I hadn't thought of skewing the stations even more. I'll play around with it this evening and probably tomorrow - we have grandkids here this week that require entertaining!!! .

 

Cheers,

 

Philip

 

Gah! Edited for typo.

Edited February 21, 2018 by Philou

[Denbridge]

Hi Philou,

 

I've been thinking about your layout design, thinking about what the Stationmaster said and trying to find a way to slot everything together a bit more comfortably. (You may have noticed that I posted an attempt but then took it down again because it wasn't good enough.)

 

I think I have finally hit upon a good solution so I hope you don't mind me posting it here. Please just treat it as another suggestion - further ideas for the melting pot.

 

These are the issues I see with the plan in post #72:

• Plan #72 has an expanse of scenery over the fiddle yard access triangle with no direct railway interest.
• No simple scenic run
• No double-track across the fiddle yard access triangle - no possibility of running counter-directional trains. No means for trains to pass without entering the fiddle yard (and thus changing direction). A bit difficult for long distance trains to run continuously.
• The two stations face each other so that down and up lines become connected, as the Stationmaster noted.
• Not enough room for a real station at "Dymented".
• Dymented is not in a scene of it's own - double track running lines unrealistically nearby.
• Ledbury viaduct has unrealistic single track bridge or mini-viaduct behind it.
• Traverser may be too big to engineer reliably and takes up a lot of room in the operating well.
• Trackwork compromised by baseboards.
• Gradients and clearances very tight.

I think I can address all of those issues by running a high level line above the technical area that feeds the fiddle yard (as previously suggested), adjusting things to make access easier under the high-level scene and replacing traverser with turntable fiddle yard.

 

So here is the new design idea:

Ledbury Pontrilas 4k.png

Design points:

• Railway on four sides - no "wasted" baseboard area (that's not the right word but you know what I mean)
• Double track across the fiddle yard access with passing loops for more flexible running and possibly continuous running (depending on how Ledbury tunnel is set up)
• Simpler presentation - no lines visibly crossing each other or branch lines running uncomfortably near main lines in scenic areas
• A purely scenic run for simple double track main line: Across Ledbury viaduct, through countryside (not in deep cuttings...), through the short tunnel into Pontrilas - to show off your Kings and Castles!
• By turning Ledbury around it's down line connects to Pontrilas down, and up to up (obviously). This also has the advantage that the "toe" of Ledbury station is connected to the fiddle yard, as in plan #72.
• Both branch lines turn to the left, as per the prototypes, and yet are connected...
• Plenty of room for a simple branch line station, in it's own quiet scene - something like Clifford: just a passing loop, a siding, a platform and a water tower in countryside :-)
• Plenty of room for branch line to climb above main lines with easy inclines and clearances.
• Turntable fiddle yard takes less space, probably easier to engineer than a big traverser, doesn't need parallel feed lines (so can be pushed closer to baseboards), can turn whole trains, inc. engine and brake vans/ brake coaches.
• More usable space in operating well.
• Gloucester branch line turns away from the main line just outside Ledbury station - a better representation of the prototype.
• Golden valley branch line climbs over hills, as the prototype did - I believe all stations on the line had greater altitude than Pontrilas.
• Baseboards arranged to suit the track. Ledbury turntable fits on the board! One access hatch needed where baseboard width > 1200mm.
• You can reach under the upper level branch line boards to access the main circuit track and pointwork below.
• Large radius turns for mainline track where it's visible (min radius 900mm elsewhere)
• Min branch line radius 600mm (necessary compromise and I feel that's OK for branch line traffic)
• Note that because the Gloucester branch line turns 180degrees and connects to the Golden Valley branch they form a reversing loop, which may or may not be useful...

[Edit: Earlier Gloucester and Worcester confusion has now been corrected.)

at a cursory glance I would think thar 180 degree curveb looks pretty tight, plus having 6 turnouts and a lot of track hidden under a higher level is a potential problem for access.

Also I don't see why having a short area of scenery without railway interest is a problem. There is plenty of  "trains in the landscape" interest in #72.

[Harlequin]

at a cursory glance I would think thar 180 degree curveb looks pretty tight, plus having 6 turnouts and a lot of track hidden under a higher level is a potential problem for access.

Also I don't see why having a short area of scenery without railway interest is a problem. There is plenty of  "trains in the landscape" interest in #72.

 

Yes the Gloucester line turn is relatively tight at 600mm radius but nothing that would cause any rolling stock a problem, especially branch line type traffic. It relates well to the sharp turn made in the prototype and obviously would be disguised somewhat in the layout with some view blocking before it disappears behind the false backscene. (It could be widened but that has consequences for the alignment of Ledbury, depth of baseboard, size of operating well, length of Ledbury viaduct, etc., etc... So it's a deliberate compromise.)

 

Access to the passing loop and fiddle yard feed line points should not a problem: The furthest is about 450mm (1ft6in) from the baseboard edge - specifically designed to be easily reachable.

 

An area of non-railway scenery is not a problem in itself, obviously, but in plan #72 that area is ~2.8m long from tunnel mouth to tunnel mouth! In my judgement (subjective, I know) that was too much so I chose to deal with it in my suggested design.

[Denbridge]

Yes the Gloucester line turn is relatively tight at 600mm radius but nothing that would cause any rolling stock a problem, especially branch line type traffic. It relates well to the sharp turn made in the prototype and obviously would be disguised somewhat in the layout with some view blocking before it disappears behind the false backscene. (It could be widened but that has consequences for the alignment of Ledbury, depth of baseboard, size of operating well, length of Ledbury viaduct, etc., etc... So it's a deliberate compromise.)

 

Access to the passing loop and fiddle yard feed line points should not a problem: The furthest is about 450mm (1ft6in) from the baseboard edge - specifically designed to be easily reachable.

 

An area of non-railway scenery is not a problem in itself, obviously, but in plan #72 that area is ~2.8m long from tunnel mouth to tunnel mouth! In my judgement (subjective, I know) that was too much so I chose to deal with it in my suggested design.

I'm only speaking from my own experiences. Sooner or later hidden trackwork, particularly pointwork will cause problems and require more attention than can be achieved by access holes. One of the advantages of #72 is that the hidden 'triangle would be easily accessible via a scenic 'lid' over the trackwork. That long stretch of branch running behind the backscene could also prove problematical for access and maintenance.

[Denbridge]

I'm only speaking from my own experiences. Sooner or later hidden trackwork, particularly pointwork will cause problems and require more attention than can be achieved by access holes. One of the advantages of #72 is that the hidden 'triangle would be easily accessible via a scenic 'lid' over the trackwork. That long stretch of branch running behind the backscene could also prove problematical for access and maintenance.

One concern I would have is to regard to the layouts location. From earlier descriptions I am guessing the building will be subject to fairly large climatic changes. That being the case, it would be even more desirable to be able to access as much as possible of the trackwork. In this respect #72 seems to achieve that. I'm not trying to deliberately put down ideas, just to try and advise from hard won experience of problems i've personally encountered. 

[Harlequin]

I'm only speaking from my own experiences. Sooner or later hidden trackwork, particularly pointwork will cause problems and require more attention than can be achieved by access holes. One of the advantages of #72 is that the hidden 'triangle would be easily accessible via a scenic 'lid' over the trackwork. That long stretch of branch running behind the backscene could also prove problematical for access and maintenance.

 

I carefully arranged the high-level line not to pass directly over any main level pointwork so that lift-off sections are possible, if required.

 

You're right that access to some of the pointwork, and the line behind the backscene, could occasionally be an issue but it's part of the compromise that makes the design work as a whole and thus achieve the good things listed above.

[Chimer]

Wrt Phil's latest, I'd thought about a similar 180 on the branch line(s) as a way of giving them direct access to the fiddle yard but couldn't make that work.

 

I'm not sure that it matters any more, but in the real world a train from Pontrilas to Ledbury would leave Pontrilas going left as seen in Phil's plan, i.e. past the facing junction for the Golden Valley line, and arrive at Ledbury also going left, i.e. past the trailing junction from Gloucester.  Which won't happen.  So the correct ends of P & L are connected to the wrong ends of L & P, if you see what I mean.

 

Really radical thought - perhaps we should all leave Philou alone for a few weeks now, so he can sort his ideas out in his head without feeling compelled to commit them all to the thread ....... and thereby effectively inviting lots more conflicting "advice".

 

But I do want to see the final solution - and come and visit, if I can get a visa after March 2019.

 

Cheers

 

Chris

[Philou]

Oh noes! Please! Don't leave me all alone with ideas in my head - you never know what may happen.

 

Seriously though - I am so pleased you've come back with yet more thoughts and counter-thoughts. There may well things that I had already put to plan (and not shown here) and ideas that have come forward recently that when mixed together could perhaps be THE plan (or dog's breakfast of course ).

 

Those that want to come and have a look - you'd be more than welcome - there's always room. Mind you, Chimer, I may not get a visa to get back to the UK and worse of all, I'll no doubt have to pay additional VAT on models imported from L&B (other model emporiums are available) .

 

Kind regards,

 

Philip

[Brassey]

 

...I'm not sure that it matters any more, but in the real world a train from Pontrilas to Ledbury would leave Pontrilas going left as seen in Phil's plan, i.e. past the facing junction for the Golden Valley line, and arrive at Ledbury also going left, i.e. past the trailing junction from Gloucester.  Which won't happen.  So the correct ends of P & L are connected to the wrong ends of L & P, if you see what I mean.

 

 

Chris

 

 

IIrC, very little traffic, if any, ran directly between Pontrilas and Ledbury.  Both were linked via Hereford.

[Philou]

@ Chimer @Brassey,

 

That is it in a nutshell - though linked there was little through traffic - even today, all trains (other than an odd freight or two) coming from points east (Birmingham/Worcester/London) through Ledbury terminate at Hereford. The only through trains are those on the Newport/Shrewsbury line via Hereford. Connections for Ledbury at Hereford, are cross-platform. (I believe though, there were a great number of exceptions only during the war.)

 

Regarding Phil's latest plan, there is another point in that there is now a polarity issue with the branch, whereas the others have avoided it. Nonetheless, I did say I would have a fiddle with it and see where it takes me.

 

BTW, if any of you have been following the stairway to heaven saga, is been a bit of an uphill struggle - all went well yesterday as I managed to place three treads and risers. This morning I partially dismantled seven of them to relay them square again - somewhere I mis-read the bubble. All done and dusted in an hour so it wasn't too dire a job. I should be finished Friday (which is just as well as a 'parcel' is arriving tomorrow ).

 

Cheers,

 

Philip

[Harlequin]

As The Stationmaster said earlier, the idea is that when considering Ledbury, Pontrilas in the model represents some other anonymous station on the line and vice-versa. In my design they are connected so that trains notionally heading for Hereford are on the same line through both stations.

 

@Philou: Re. the "polarity" of the branch line: It would simply be isolated at both ends and powered through a DCC AutoReverser. I.e. all the orangey-brown lines in the drawing. There are other ways to do it but that's the most obvious.

 

And I think you'd need another AutoReverser for the turntable.

Edited February 22, 2018 by Harlequin

[The Stationmaster]

 

Wrt Phil's latest, I'd thought about a similar 180 on the branch line(s) as a way of giving them direct access to the fiddle yard but couldn't make that work.

 

I'm not sure that it matters any more, but in the real world a train from Pontrilas to Ledbury would leave Pontrilas going left as seen in Phil's plan, i.e. past the facing junction for the Golden Valley line, and arrive at Ledbury also going left, i.e. past the trailing junction from Gloucester.  Which won't happen.  So the correct ends of P & L are connected to the wrong ends of L & P, if you see what I mean.

 

Really radical thought - perhaps we should all leave Philou alone for a few weeks now, so he can sort his ideas out in his head without feeling compelled to commit them all to the thread ....... and thereby effectively inviting lots more conflicting "advice".

 

But I do want to see the final solution - and come and visit, if I can get a visa after March 2019.

 

Cheers

 

Chris

 

 

But in operational terms an Up train at Pontrilas would also be an Up train at Ledbury which at least makes some operational aspects a lot simpler on the layout.  So there's no need to worry about the confusion of 'Up' changing into 'Down' on a different part of the layout.

 

As regards anything running from Pontrilas to Ledbury, or vice versa, in the real world we can I think forget it as it would only be at all likely for occasional wagons of freight traffic which would in any event be remarshalled at either Hereford or maybe even somewhere south thereof in the modern era although it was different in Pre-war years and early post-war  Don't forget that in the real world something which runs through either of the these stations would have to reverse before running through the other and would inevitably be hauled by a different loco as well.

As The Stationmaster said earlier, the idea is that when considering Ledbury, Pontrilas in the model represents some other anonymous station on the line and vice-versa. In my design they are connected so that trains notionally heading for Hereford are on the same line through both stations.

 

@Philou: Re. the "polarity" of the branch line: It would simply be isolated at both ends and powered through a DCC AutoReverser. I.e. all the orangey-brown lines in the drawing. There are other ways to do it but that's the most obvious.

 

And I think you'd need another AutoReverser for the turntable.

 

Although on your plan what would be a Down train on the Main Line at Ledbury turns into an Up train on the Main Line at Pontrilas although at least the branch trains remain directionally consistent at both stations.

 

Oops geographical error corrected

Edited February 22, 2018 by The Stationmaster

[Chimer]

Don't forget that in the real world something which runs through either of the these stations would have to reverse before running through the other and would inevitably be hauled by a different loco as well.

 

That's news to me - just looks like a straightforward through station on the maps I've looked at, and Gloucester (oops) Worcester - Ledbury - Hereford - Pontrilas looks an entirely sensible route from Birmingham to the Head of the Valleys.  But as I've never been anywhere near there I'm not arguing    ........ 

 

Chris

Edited February 22, 2018 by Chimer

[The Stationmaster]

That's news to me - just looks like a straightforward through station on the maps I've looked at, and Gloucester - Ledbury - Hereford - Pontrilas looks an entirely sensible route from Birmingham to the Head of the Valleys.  But as I've never been anywhere near there I'm not arguing    ........ 

 

Chris

 

Geographical error on my part , sorry (I was thinking of Leominster for some reason  ) - but a Down train passing through Ledbury would still be a Down train passing through Pontrilas in the real world as well as on the Plan on the plan at Post No 72.   

 

Gloucester-Ledbury-Hereford-Pontrilas would not really be worth much as it would require reversal at Ledbury, just as Gloucester-Hereford - Pontrilas would require a reversal at Hereford.  The shorter route from Birmingham would be via Worcester and Ledbury towards Pontrilas and pre-war it was a busy route for freight plus the occasional Birmingham - Cardiff passenger trains. Only a small number of the freights subsequently turned off down the Vale of Neath with most of them taking either the main line or the Eastern Valleys route south of Pontypool Road.