Painted myself into a corner?

[The Stationmaster]

'Tis me ...... again!

 

Right - now this cunning plan I had - here it is:

 

LayoutE.4.jpg

 

 

snapshotE.4a.jpg

 

 

What I have done is to reverse the storage/traverser in order to maintain nearer-prototypical movements. Trains now originate their journeys in either 'Newport' or 'Worcester'. There is no longer 'Hereford' - just a general direction. Whilst trains in a prototypical manner MAY not have gone through Pontrilas AND then Ledbury, or vice versa, they COULD have (and do so today via the odd freight movement) as the lines are physically joined (and in the correct direction on the plan). The triangle has now disappeared under the Malvern Hills. Those observing train movements arriving at one or other of the tunnel portals may, or may not, see the train re-appear. It will depend if the train is on a roundy-roundy journey or attempting something a little prototypical - now you see it, now you don't.

 

I have deliberately kept Ledbury tunnel as single line - it is as it is. It will add to operational interest and complexity, as I'm sure it does still today in the real world.

 

Insofar as the branches are concerned, they have been kept in order that some branch movements can also take place. I haven't shown a branch station other than by the brown rectangle. It may become eventually a through station or just a couple of loops and a siding or two so that branch line trains can be varied. I suspect that in the real world they were probably shuttle trains anyway.

 

I have done away with the MPD as such but I have retained the turntable and couple of roads so that steam locos can be turned (and stocked) without need for much 'gerfingerpoken'. I haven't included a headshunt for stock release (because I forgot ) but that can easily be added.

 

So ........ what say you? Your thoughts, gentlemen (and ladies naturally).

 

Cheers,

 

Philip

 

Edit: I forgot to say that the tunnel could be kept under observation via CCTV - after all why not use the technology if it is there to be used? Thanks to John ks for the idea!

 

As a model railway plan using a couple of prototype station layouts I think that is rather neat.  In effect it gives you three layouts in one which is quite a good idea when you have plenty of space to work in so let's look at that in a slightly different way -

 

1.  You have a model railway with two through stations which each have a connection to a single line branch and rather cleverly the two single line branches are one and the same = more than enough to keep three operators busy but it needs a minor tweak to the plan to make it even better I think (see below).

 

2. You have a model of Pontrilas with the branch included.

 

3. You have a model of Ledbury with the branch included.

 

When you are running either 2 or 3 the other through station/junction simply becomes 'somewhere else' for trains to pass through and for branch trains to shunt, changeover, or whatever.  The name on the other station becomes irrelevant

 

But what 2 and 3 require - if you so wish - is two differing in some respects sets of locos and stock to accurately portray what could be seen at that place.  And I think your train storage might be insufficient so I would suggest provision of cassettes to enable you to ring the changes if that is what you wish to do - entirely up to you.

 

The one minor tweak I would make is to extend the Down (Newport direction) line from Pontrilas across the base of the triangle to connect into the single line to Ledbury.  This would allow, however you work the layout, a Down train to circulate without interfering with an Up train emerging from the storage sidings.  A bit like playing trains I realise but if you're working single handed you could keep things running while doing changeovers in the storage area.  (And rather amusingly the Down & Up directions are prototypically consistent through the entire layout.)

I like the more rational design.

 

I don't really understand the Hereford/Worcester/Newport through Ledbury/Pontrilas problem. I guess it's to do with the topology of the prototype lines? If someone could explain I'd like to get my head around it.

 

I don't think it is a problem as long as you don't make it into one.  My 'three layouts in one' approach completely does. away with any thought of a problem because there ceases to be any sort of conflict - real or imagined - and the North & West Line route and the Worcester - Hereford route can remain, as two distinct layouts or be worked together as 'a model railway' (with the advantage that Down trains are always Down trains wherever they are on the layout).  and of course in any event the two stations are so close together that you will have to suspends an element of reality whichever way you operate the railway. 

[Chimer]

I like the more rational design.

 

I don't really understand the Hereford/Worcester/Newport through Ledbury/Pontrilas problem. I guess it's to do with the topology of the prototype lines? If someone could explain I'd like to get my head around it.

 

Phil

 

The easiest thing would be to use the link to the Adlestrop atlas in my last but one post, and find Hereford.  Picture worth a thousand words.  But -  in words .......

 

Hereford is in the middle of things.  There are 3 routes out - south to S Wales (Newport) via Pontrilas, east to Worcester via Ledbury and north through Craven Arms to Shrewsbury.  Coming north from Newport towards Hereford, there is a branch off to the left at Pontrilas to Hay-on-Wye via Clifford. Coming west from Worcester towards Hereford, there is a branch off to the left at Ledbury to Gloucester via Dymock. 

 

On both plans, the correct route from Ledbury to Pontrilas is clockwise, up the left hand side of the diagram.  Hereford comes between them, though not seen.  On Plan A, this means running across the base of the FY triangle.  But to get from the FY to Ledbury to do that, you have to go through Pontrilas first, and after doing Ledbury - Pontrilas correctly, you then have to go through Ledbury again to get back to the FY.  This is what Philou doesn't like.

 

On Plan B, you can leave the FY (Gloucester), pass through Ledbury and Pontrilas, and return to the FY (now Newport).  Fine.  But you can't now run a Gloucester - Ledbury - Hereford (FY to FY) service without also going through Pontrilas, which is of course equally wrong geographically.

 

Hope that all makes sense.  I'm sure the map will help!

 

Cheers

 

Chris

[Philou]

@ Harlequin, mightbe, John ks, Chimer and Stationmaster,

 

Thank you all for your latest musings on the revised plan.

 

In response to Harlequin, the point was being made that in an ideal model world following real world practice, trains that run through Pontrilas would not have passed Ledbury, despite the lines being physically connected, in the correct direction, at Hereford. Even today, trains that run through Ledbury originate and terminate at Hereford (other than the odd freight movement). The current franchise is West Midland and GWR. I don't know the history of running powers over the line prior to 1948 as I hadn't considered prototypical traffic before starting this topic. Given the proposed plan and the space to put it in, I think the feeling is it is a case of 'so near' in terms of PROTOYPE and I agree with that view.

 

Prior to 1948, it would seem that the photographic evidence would indicate purely GWR steam locos (Castles, prairies, panniers, a 2-8-0T used as an assisting engine and towards end of the life of the branch-line, the ubiquitous GWR railcar). It is why I am rather keen to keep the single bore tunnel with its sharp gradient as part of the scheme as it gives even more scope for operational interest. I am under the impression that it is also a reason why the turntable was kept until the end of steam due to GWR rules regarding pony trucks and assisting locos and the need to turn the assisting loco around the 'right way' despite it being a tank loco.

 

In the case of Pontrilas, again I hadn't done any research regarding prototypical movements as it wasn't my primary purpose of the layout  - originally - and Rule No 1 will have to apply from time to time. However, despite R1, there is no reason why some effort on my part shouldn't be made to get it right - even partially. It is not a question of the topography as Harlequin may think, it is a question of the lines that seemingly just didn't operate together as one, despite the link at Hereford. The current franchise along the Newport - Shrewsbury (via Hereford) line is Arriva Trains Wales only - the connection to the other two franchisees at Hereford, is cross-platform.

 

What happened prior to 1922, I simply do not know (I can have a look at the clearing house maps) but I think if I read The Stationmaster's comments correctly, it was probably GWR/LNWR. Certainly, the photographs of Pontrilas showing branch line movements show a variety of odd engines - some cast-offs from other railways after 1922 viz: 0-6-0STs No 359 'Hilda' (which must have worked on a tram-line at sometime as she is equipped with a bell) and No 1385 'John Owen'. Additionally, there were 0-4-2Ts, open and closed cab, 1437 and 5818. Other locos appear on the photographs but I am unclear if they are the same locos or others. In respect of mainline running through Pontrilas I have only head-on photos of the through trains, but they appear to be mainly GWR tender locos. As Brassey mentioned earlier, express trains - even stopping ones, on the photos at Pontrilas, had destination boards. Perhaps The Stationmaster may be able to give a brief overview of the traffic?

 

To return to Harlequin's point - the two railways didn't work together.

 

However, I think the point recently made by The Stationmaster, and earlier by Chimer, to consider the two stations as two halves as having merit. Do detail movements, shunting, branch-line work and the like at one end with the correct stock (if possible) for that station, and not worry too much what happens to a train on the main-line once it clears the station throat - it has gone 'elsewhere'. The fact it has travelled through 'Ledbury' (or conversely, Pontrilas) is of no consequence. It matters not one jot - IF you concentrate on one station area at any one time. I suspect that if by chance there would ever be more than one person in the operating well, there would be so much to do, there will not be time to bother whether stock is prototypical , but rather, movements being prototypical.

 

From a casual observation of the club members, no-one bats an eye-lid when the same train passes through the same station four times (twice in each direction) in as many minutes. Mind you, perhaps they're not too fussy as they allow me to run my UK stock on their French layout!

 

In turning to John ks's thoughts regarding the location of the fiddle yard - there is a wall at the back of Pontrilas (could just as easily be Ledbury) and alongside the other station, being a mezzanine, there is a six-foot drop. In any case, the stations are on boards that I consider to be a maximum comfortable stretch width of 900mm (3ft) - for me, anyway. In any case, despite the yuuuuge space available, if the two stations are drawn closer together, and a central peninsula is retained, you cannot maintain a minimum 1.0m radius - which I think would a great pity. If the boards are narrowed, then you lose the prototypical layout of the station areas (though some trimming of the goods yard at Ledbury has already occurred). Oh, and access is from below - however it does not have to be centrally placed - there is no floor yet and therefore there is leeway as to where the access will be placed finally.

 

There we are, my thoughts on your musings .

 

Can I suggest that the latest plan, subject to tweaks, is probably the best of the bunch? For the moment, and despite reservations expressed regarding the single line triangle, does this one tick a lot more boxes than the original at post #1?

 

Kind regards and thanks again to you all,

 

Philip

[Harlequin]

Thanks everyone. I get it now.

 

The answer that everyone seems to be subscribing to is what I had assumed: That you suspend disbelief when traffic has to take a technically impossible route (either due to mismatching topology or not following prototypical operating restrictions).

 

Here's a possible way of thinking about it: A model only represents part of a larger network. While operations are going on that you can see there are also imaginary operations taking place on the network around the model that you can't see. You would expect some of those operations to appear in your modelled part of the network from time to time. So when some of your modelled traffic runs over a technically impossible route it just momentarily represents another train that is part of the off-model network operation.

 

This is all getting very existential! 

 

P.S. The Adlestrop Atlas is wonderful.

Edited February 10, 2018 by Harlequin

[Philou]

@ Chris,

 

Prototypical train movements hadn't been foremost in my mind when I started the topic - I was asking really if I was making the best of the opportunity of the yuuuuge space at my disposal and things just evolved.

 

I expect it's a hangover from when I were a lad and the layout I never finished - though I did have a 27' 1" x 7' 6" in an attic at home that I built in around 1965. Terminus (full size as per CJ Freezer's plan on another thread) to fiddle yard, plus branch-line, plus external double track roundy roundy. 2ft minimum radius, all on Peco Streamline. Ballasted, track colour oh and the wiring, that was a nightmare - but all soldered (from underneath). I enjoyed that. Cab control with 5 Codars (remember them?). I gave it up for three reasons: car, women and the fact that my father (bless him) loved running things at full tilt on the roundy roundy and burnt out 4 of my 5 Codars (I have the refugee with me still). They were only about 4 months old. At that point, having put every penny that I earned working in a model shop (hence the track was discounted), I gave up in disgust and left him with it. He ran it quite happily with my old H&M Duette after that. Such is life.

 

So, coming back OT:

 

So, am I using the space to its advantage - I think so. As Harlequin rightly pointed out when I titivated it following suggestions made - you can do TOO much. It's now just a question of getting the balance right and IF a bit of prototypical stock movement can be achieved, so much the better. It isn't the target - had it been so - I would have gone for a one station to double ended fiddle yard with perhaps a branch (why am I thinking Hereford all of a sudden ......... ).

 

Philip

 

PS: @ Chris: Have another look at the bottom layout in my post #66 if you haven't seen it. Was this perhaps the sort of thing of no compromise? It could have been made so that trains from one station did not necessarily call at the next station. A decent fiddle yard would have had to be included - I didn't get that far as I considered I was having visions of grandeur (hallucinations more like!).

 

Edited for the PS.

Edited February 10, 2018 by Philou

[Harlequin]

I feel the latest plan has a lot of good points but I notice that you have lost the long simple run through scenery from Pontrilas to the tunnel entrance and I think that's a shame. A layout of this size ought to have the luxury of long runs through countryside.

 

And the single track nature of the triangle is a worry. I think that the triangle was better on the other side, where it had double track feed lines.

 

I wish I could offer you a solution but it's difficult to satisfy all the constraints at the same time... I have a small ember of an idea that, with the triangle and the fiddle yard on the left, your clever connecting branch lines could vault over the triangle with a station up there. If it could be made to work it would have a number of good points:

• Hides the off-stage magic of the triangle
• Allows the triangle to be double track
• Makes best use of the area that hides the triangle (instead of it just being hillside).
• Allows the branch line station to stand alone in a scene without other tracks being awkwardly visible nearby.
• Leave a largely scenic area on the right.

But it simply doesn't work at the moment because the junction stations are too close to gain the required elevation and anyway you wouldn't want the golden valley branch to start rising immediately out of Pontrilas in front of the main line.

 

There must be a way to do something like that... Thinking caps on.

Edited February 11, 2018 by Harlequin

[Brassey]

@ Harlequin, mightbe, John ks, Chimer and Stationmaster,

 

Thank you all for your latest musings on the revised plan.

 

...What happened prior to 1922, I simply do not know (I can have a look at the clearing house maps) but I think if I read The Stationmaster's comments correctly, it was probably GWR/LNWR. Certainly, the photographs of Pontrilas showing branch line movements show a variety of odd engines - some cast-offs from other railways after 1922 viz: 0-6-0STs No 359 'Hilda' (which must have worked on a tram-line at sometime as she is equipped with a bell) and No 1385 'John Owen'. Additionally, there were 0-4-2Ts, open and closed cab, 1437 and 5818. Other locos appear on the photographs but I am unclear if they are the same locos or others. In respect of mainline running through Pontrilas I have only head-on photos of the through trains, but they appear to be mainly GWR tender locos. As Brassey mentioned earlier, express trains - even stopping ones, on the photos at Pontrilas, had destination boards. Perhaps The Stationmaster may be able to give a brief overview of the traffic?...

 

Philip

 

 

In pre-grouping days the line from Shrewsbury to Hereford was joint LNWR/GWR and later LMS/GWR.  The LNWR had running rights to its line at Abergavenny Junction thus going through Pontrilas.  These rights probably only extended to their own trains so "joint" trains would have been under the charge of GWR locos south of Hereford.  GWR 4-6-0's were not allowed over the joint line which is where the 4-4-0 Counties came in most running between Bristol and Shrewsbury.

 

The main feature of the express traffic was that it was made up almost entirely of mixed through carriages from either company going between such destinations as Liverpool, Manchester, Birkenhead, Bristol, Newport, Cardiff, Plymouth, Truro, Penzance; there was even a through Caledonian carriage from Glasgow to Weston-super-Mare.

 

Significant goods traffic ran south from Birkenhead in express freight trains.  Some Coal traffic went North from the South Wales coalfields though most of that was destined for the ports.

 

I have seen Hope-under-Dinmore on a couple of occasions and it is a club layout,  Some of the members are here on RMWeb and I have shared data with them on the line.  There is a GWR Working Timetable online for 1936 and there was not much difference between that and pre-grouping days.

[gordon s]

Just stumbled across this thread this morning and not sure of you are still considering a large traverser.  I may be able to give you some insights into building one as here's one I made earlier.......

 

 

 

 

[Harlequin]

Blowing on the embers produces this rough idea:

Ledbury Pontrilas 2.pdf

 

It's self-explanatory, really. Both junctions turn outside the main circuit so that the branch line has enough length to rise above the main level before any branch station track needs cross above the main circuit.

To do that I elected to make Ledbury turn right because that seemed the least obtrusive change and thus I then had to swap the two stations from top to bottom.

 

If the main line descends to the left out of both Ridebury (Ledbury) and Pontrilas that would help improve the clearance for the branch station above and make the inclines less steep. Not sure how that fits with the prototypes?

Edited February 11, 2018 by Harlequin

[Philou]

@ gordon s,

 

Hi and wowser,

 

Yes please - if you could be so kind as to give me some insight as to how you constructed it. My carpentry skills are pants - but I'm willing to learn. Can you let me know what your track centres are? It looks very interesting and about the size that is being considered for my layout.

 

Cheers,

 

Philip

[Chimer]

PS: @ Chris: Have another look at the bottom layout in my post #66 if you haven't seen it. Was this perhaps the sort of thing of no compromise? It could have been made so that trains from one station did not necessarily call at the next station. A decent fiddle yard would have had to be included - I didn't get that far as I considered I was having visions of grandeur (hallucinations more like!).

 

Yes, essentially similar to my thoughts except there you have two stations in the middle so two fiddle yards down the sides - as opposed to two stations down the sides and a single FY, accessed from both ends, in the middle, which gives (imho) a better balance of scenic and fiddle.

 

But I think Harlequin may have cracked it with post #85, especially if you've come round to thinking that Pontilras doesn't always have to be Pontrilas, and Ledbury doesn't always have to be Ledbury!  You could of course still have access to the traverser from both ends, involving a second triangle, if you were prepared to put up with duck-undering.

 

If the FY stays one-ended, I would always vote for it coming in from the left, so it can be Hereford when necessary.

 

Cheers

 

Chris

Edited February 11, 2018 by Chimer

[The Stationmaster]

In pre-grouping days the line from Shrewsbury to Hereford was joint LNWR/GWR and later LMS/GWR.  The LNWR had running rights to its line at Abergavenny Junction thus going through Pontrilas.  These rights probably only extended to their own trains so "joint" trains would have been under the charge of GWR locos south of Hereford.  GWR 4-6-0's were not allowed over the joint line which is where the 4-4-0 Counties came in most running between Bristol and Shrewsbury.

 

The main feature of the express traffic was that it was made up almost entirely of mixed through carriages from either company going between such destinations as Liverpool, Manchester, Birkenhead, Bristol, Newport, Cardiff, Plymouth, Truro, Penzance; there was even a through Caledonian carriage from Glasgow to Weston-super-Mare.

 

Significant goods traffic ran south from Birkenhead in express freight trains.  Some Coal traffic went North from the South Wales coalfields though most of that was destined for the ports.

 

I have seen Hope-under-Dinmore on a couple of occasions and it is a club layout,  Some of the members are here on RMWeb and I have shared data with them on the line.  There is a GWR Working Timetable online for 1936 and there was not much difference between that and pre-grouping days.

 

The history of the North & West route (Newport to Shrewsbury) was indeed somewhat tortuous.  Basically it was originally two separate companies - the Shrewsbury & Hereford, and the Newport, Abergavenny, and Hereford and the way these eventually went was responsible for what happened in later years with the S&H remaining joint between the GWR and LMS while the N,A & H ultimately fell into GWR hands.  At nationalisation the whole lot became part of the WR but in the early 1960s boundary changes the northernmost end passed to the LMR before finally coming back under Swindon's control in the privatised era.

 

The history of train services reflected the changing of influence - especially after the N,A & H was subsumed into GWR ownership however the LNWR, and subsequently the LMS retained considerable Running Powers south of Hereford although some of them were not exercised south of Abergavenny Junction. (the freight Running Powers to Newport Dock Street were certainly in use in the 1920s but receipts pooling probably ended that before the 1930s were out, the passenger Running Powers to Newport seem not to have been exercised at all).  Oddly during the BR period former LMS passenger locos did on occasion work through to South Wales.   Incidentally by the 1920s all the GWR 4-6-0 classes except the 'Kings' were permitted over the route, the 'Kings' were not permitted until the very late 1950s./early '60s after their transfer to Canton. 

 

The route between Ledbury and Shelwick Jcn (north of Hereford) was pure GWR and although its importance in this respect had declined by 1900 it was at one time the principal route for coal traffic between South Wales and the London area, truly the greatest way round.

 

Two very different routes - Ledbury was basically part of the Paddington - Worcester - Hereford route plus an important route for GWR freight traffic between South Wales and the Midlands while the North & West remained very much a through route between, well, the north and the west with lots of freight traffic although it lost its local passenger trains relatively early (1958) with all the smaller intermediate stations being closed for passenger traffic.  The North & West was also the earliest of the two to see some dieselisation of loco hauled trains with D8XX taking over some of the trains to/from the West of England although DMUs probably had appeared first on the Ledbury route plus some workings south of Hereford towards Cardiff.

 

Thus two very different routes with considerable differences in traffic but the biggest difference is former LMS engines being seen at Pontrilas and none of them apart from 8Fs likely to be seen at Ledbury.

[The Stationmaster]

 

But I think Harlequin may have cracked it with post #85, especially if you've come round to thinking that Pontilras doesn't always have to be Pontrilas, and Ledbury doesn't always have to be Ledbury!  You could of course still have access to the traverser from both ends, involving a second triangle, if you were prepared to put up with duck-undering.

 

sary.

 

Cheers

 

Chris

I.E. exactly as I said in post 77!!

[Chimer]

And me at #70!

[gordon s]

@ gordon s,

 

Hi and wowser,

 

Yes please - if you could be so kind as to give me some insight as to how you constructed it. My carpentry skills are pants - but I'm willing to learn. Can you let me know what your track centres are? It looks very interesting and about the size that is being considered for my layout.

 

Cheers,

 

Philip

 

 

Bit tied up today with a family celebration, so I'll try to get back to you tomorrow evening as I have a golf match in the morning.  I thought it was around the same size as the one you are planning.  This one had 16 roads on 50mm centres.  From memory it was designed to take eight Mk 1's and a tender loco, so virtually 9' in length overall.

 

I'll be back....

[Chimer]

Bit tied up today with a family celebration, so I'll try to get back to you tomorrow evening as I have a golf match in the morning.  I thought it was around the same size as the one you are planning.  This one had 16 roads on 50mm centres.  From memory it was designed to take eight Mk 1's and a tender loco, so virtually 9' in length overall.

 

I'll be back....

 

Are the bits still in the skip by any chance?

[Philou]

@ Brassey

 

Thanks or the information regarding train movements. I had an idea that they must have been LNWR as (unless I have remembered incorrectly) Merthyr Tydfil was served by both LNWR and the GWR (might have been the TVR). The LNWR by dint of running powers had a goods depot in Cardiff. There is a 1924 photograph of an 0-6-2T Webb Coal Tank taking on coal at the Rhymney Railway shed at Cardiff Docks. (Railways of Cardiff by Laurence Waters). I bought one on the strength of the picture - hadn't even crossed my mind regarding stock movements on the layout - funny how things work out.

 

Cheers,

 

Philip

[Philou]

@ Mike, Stationmaster,

 

Thank you for the detailed information - it came through as I sent my reply to Brassey. It does seem to have been, and perhaps still is, an important line. I do wonder how Ledbury survived at all as many trains on the Birmingham - Hereford (via Worcester) line terminate at Malvern - though there still are a few daily return trains to London (Paddington) via Oxford (plus local services Hereford - Birmingham of course) - hence why I was intending to run HSTs through Ledbury in my model world.

 

Mike, are you able to advise what LNWR locomotive power might have run through Pontrilas? I simply do not have access to any books relating to the LNWR, though I expect Ebay/Amazon would be my friend. I only ask to have some idea. It would seem from the photographs that I have seen on the web, the passenger trains are hauled by what looks like GWR locos - no freight at all in the views! It ties in with what you were saying regarding the freight and passenger running powers.

 

Regards,

 

Philip

 

Running a King through Pontrilas was on my list of movements too - as I had seen the route availability plans mentioned elsewhere.

[Philou]

@ Harlequin,

 

Thank you for the revised plan. I'm going to have digest it very slowly and pick out the bones. At first glance, I would say that the reasoning behind the way my two stations are laid out, is that the track alignments leading 'westwards' from each station are aligned correctly - ie; Ledbury towards 'Hereford' swings 'north' and Pontrilas towards 'Hereford' swings 'south'. However, I have to say in the case of the 'eastern' ends of each station - it is not as it is on the ground - both are relatively straight alignments. Nonetheless, I see that 'geographically' the two stations are tied together correctly via 'Hereford'. (I'm using quote marks as compass directions on the layout, as the true directions are completely different as you will have seen on the Adlestrop Atlas.)

 

I'm not sure how to proceed - choices, choices, decisions, decisions .................

 

But, hey, thanks for all your thoughts and information so far gentlemen .

 

Cheers,

 

Philip

Edited February 11, 2018 by Philou

[Philou]

@ Mike, Stationmaster,

 

I forgot to ask: Out of curiosity, what was the routing of trains between the West of England and the North and West? It would seem a very circuitous route. I can see why the GWR would have used their metals through Ledbury rather that go via the Gloucester/Cheltenham way. But WofE via NandW? An enquiring mind wants to know .

 

Regards,

 

Philip

[Brassey]

@ gordon s,

 

Hi and wowser,

 

Yes please - if you could be so kind as to give me some insight as to how you constructed it. My carpentry skills are pants - but I'm willing to learn. Can you let me know what your track centres are? It looks very interesting and about the size that is being considered for my layout.

 

Cheers,

 

Philip

 

You can see from his thread that Gordon uses Templot extensively for track planning.  You can see printed templates in the pic.  I use it too and the track centres are set in Templot at 67mm which is prototypical but I build in P4.  Not sure if OO is the same but it should be as the stock is the same widths.  Presumably you could set it differently in fiddle yards. 

[Brassey]

... what LNWR locomotive power might have run through Pontrilas? I simply do not have access to any books relating to the LNWR, though I expect Ebay/Amazon would be my friend. I only ask to have some idea. It would seem from the photographs that I have seen on the web, the passenger trains are hauled by what looks like GWR locos - no freight at all in the views! It ties in with what you were saying regarding the freight and passenger running powers.

 

Regards,

 

Philip

 

Running a King through Pontrilas was on my list of movements too - as I had seen the route availability plans mentioned elsewhere.

LNWR locos would have been those shedded at Abergavenny or Shrewsbury at the time.  Abergavenny had a large number of coal tanks and various 0-8-0's.  As these are the only LNWR locos available RTR anything else would need to be scratch or kit built.

 

These would include 19" Goods and 0-8-4 tanks.  Passenger duties would be down to George V's.  All this varied over the years so depends on the period under consideration.

[Brassey]

@ Mike, Stationmaster,

 

I forgot to ask: Out of curiosity, what was the routing of trains between the West of England and the North and West? It would seem a very circuitous route. I can see why the GWR would have used their metals through Ledbury rather that go via the Gloucester/Cheltenham way. But WofE via NandW? An enquiring mind wants to know .

 

Regards,

 

Philip

From West the route North went Exeter, Weston-s-Mare, Bristol, Severn Tunnel Junction, Newport, Pontypool Road, Abergavenny Junction, Hereford etc.

[gordon s]

You can see from his thread that Gordon uses Templot extensively for track planning.  You can see printed templates in the pic.  I use it too and the track centres are set in Templot at 67mm which is prototypical but I build in P4.  Not sure if OO is the same but it should be as the stock is the same widths.  Presumably you could set it differently in fiddle yards. 

 

 

Just passing.  Not sure where you've got that info from.  00 track centres in Templot are 50mm.  I use 00-SF which are normally 44.67mm, the same as P4.  

 

The only 00 that uses 67mm that I'm aware of is probably Peco.

[Philou]

I'm using 45mm centres at the moment - in my view it just looks better and IIRC it's more true scale. I'm led to believe the 50mm is to allow for stock over-hang on tighter curves. I shall be setting out my curves very carefully and checking with the longest stock that I have, before committing.

 

The downside is that it means at crossovers pointwork needs trimming to suit - I'm not going for handbuilt trackwork - there's about 70 points and 155 yards to lay and I don't feel I want to give that aspect of the layout the time - time for me that is running out! Don't get me wrong - I have done it and I was pretty pleased with the results (at the time!), but I wouldn't do it now. Code75 will be enough with which to deal.

 

@ Brassey, thanks for the  stock and routeing information - does seem convoluted though.

 

Cheers,

 

Philip

 

PS: I'm onto cunning plan  v1.1 but it won't be up until tomorrow - sorry. Stairs got in the way of doing railway stuff today .