An N gauge Southern vignette

[AndyB]

Thanks @RobinofLoxley

 

Well while I was intending to pack up for the night I had "one more go" to figure out what the problem might be.

 

And I think I've resolved it. 

 

Trying to couple coaches together on 3rd radius didn't work. But if there were already coupled ona straighter piece of track then they seem to stay coupled once on the curve. 

 

I tested this out by creating a zig ziggy arrangement with all the various  bits of set track I had and the rake held together.

 

But I'm glad I tried this out on a table top exercise before any wood was cut! 

 

Next step - print out Finescale turnout templates...

 

[RobinofLoxley]

I couldnt see what the couplings actually were on the photos. But on my own layout I observed that coupled rakes with standard tension locks went round the 2nd and 3rd radius 00 curves better after I installed the superelevation. I gave you an exaggerrated test value. The improvement was that as the rake travels round the curve, there is more pressure on the outside coupling leading them to tighten and force the inside one into a raised, uncoupled position. The SE stopped that happening. I'm going to test other couplings as a result. I know my findings may not apply to N gauge at all. My test was also on second and third radius, so quite tight.

[RobinofLoxley]

22 hours ago, Harlequin said:

 

Hmmm... The fact that you feel unable to plan the layout in detail in AnyRail, and have to resort to real-size pencil and paper, is a damning indictment of that program! It ought to be able to do the job for anyone and everyone in every scale.

 

There have been about three 'Upgrades' this year of fairly substantial size, about 40meg each. Some of that is inclusion of other track types, but bug fixes are always mentioned. My opinion is that the accuracy of the track rendering has improved in the 3 years since I started using the full application, not just the starter. But that applies to the limited palette of Hornby and Peco 00 track libraries I use regularly. But when I go a bit more off piste onto (Peco) N gauge, I see a few more ghosts in the machinery. One came up trying to work with different codes of N that are supposed to be compatible but quite clearly werent, at least not in Anyrail.

[Keith Addenbrooke]

Hi,Andy, I think I’ve managed to replicate the coupling problem exactly as you describe - using German 86’ passenger cars and 4th radius Setrack curves, I can also get them to randomly miscouple when trying to join on the curves:

 

 

The photo show how one coupling rests loosely coupled above the other, just waiting to separate.  On the straight these are 100% reliable.  Worth noting when finalising the layout plan - a problem to avoid.  Hope it helps, Keith.

[AndyB]

Hey @Keith Addenbrooke that's very reassuring that you were able to reproduce this behaviour. 

 

Many thanks for taking time out to test this.

 

Thankfully the layout will only ever have coach formations made up in the straight FY. 

 

In fact the only rolling stock which will be uncoupled on the layout will be short wheelbase wagons. And that will happen on relatively straight sections of track.

 

Andy

[Flying Pig]

16 minutes ago, AndyB said:

Hey @Keith Addenbrooke that's very reassuring that you were able to reproduce this behaviour. 

 

Many thanks for taking time out to test this.

 

Thankfully the layout will only ever have coach formations made up in the straight FY. 

 

In fact the only rolling stock which will be uncoupled on the layout will be short wheelbase wagons. And that will happen on relatively straight sections of track.

 

Andy

 

Most types of autocoupling will couple less well or not at all on curved track so it isn't unique to the Arnold type, but they do seem to be fairly fussy about proper alignment.  Make sure the close coupling units on your carriages are running smoothly too.

 

If you're proposing to run fixed sets of carriages, perhaps something like Hunt couplings would work within the set? Or even the Dapol Nemcoup type?

 

[Keith Addenbrooke]

1 hour ago, Flying Pig said:

 

Most types of autocoupling will couple less well or not at all on curved track so it isn't unique to the Arnold type, but they do seem to be fairly fussy about proper alignment.  Make sure the close coupling units on your carriages are running smoothly too.

 

If you're proposing to run fixed sets of carriages, perhaps something like Hunt couplings would work within the set? Or even the Dapol Nemcoup type?

 

Another alternative is the Micro-Trains coupler from the US (essentially an N-Scale Kadee).  They’re very good, but I have to admit I can hardly see them!  There can also be a ‘slinky’ effect to be mitigated because of the springs in the couplers.
 

 

While the traditional European ‘Arnold’ N-Scale coupler is often derided as over-sized and chunky, particularly between short wheelbase wagons and on the front of locomotives (fair point), I find I hardly notice them between coaches when they’re coupled up:

 

 

Keith.

[AndyB]

I've not really talked about the Fiddle Yard design. Mainly because it was falling into one of those dedign problems where you know you've got a whole bunch of competing issues, e.g.

 

No points straddling any baseboard joins.

No track at an acute angle crossing a baseboard join.

Provide sufficient sidings for existing rolling stock and that yet to come.

Reliable operation - and its all behind a backscene. So how do you know what's where?

Cost of the numerous points and associated electronics.

Sufficient siding length for near prototypical trains.

 

I'm sure you could add a few!

 

So I'd parked it whilst getting on with the rest if the design. 

 

Until yesterday, when I had the opportunity to see behind the scenes of the Farnham club's "Wickwar" twin track roundy roundy. 

Not a million miles away from what we're trying to do here.

 

And seeing their solution was a bit of a revelation. The link above shows a montage of photos from their build including partial shots of their FY. 

Now, instead of a massive fan of points their approach was based on automation. 

Multiple trains were parked line astern in both the "Up" and "Down" with these lines cut into sections. Train detection was used to locate the front and rear of each train. When the lead train was called on then those behind it were allowed to advance into the now empty section of track.

 

There's a lot more to it and I'd not want to try to explain it in any more detail in case I misrepresent how they'd done it. 

 

Nevertheless their approach would have loads of benefits for this layout. 

 

Definitely something to explore further. 

 

 

[AndyB]

A tiny bit of progress to show and observations or thoughts always welcome.

 

As mentioned previously I've been plotting out the right-hand end of the layout.  Overview of the layout repeated below for context.

 

 

I'll form up the return curves with 2nd & 3rd radius set track. 

The photo below shows how a 4-car unit would fit. Some random objects showing how the overbridge would work as a view blocker; not entirely happy with that just yet. 

 

I can just about get that 4-car unit in without needing the platform to cross a baseboard join.

 

 

I always find that there's one particular part of the trackwork which pretty much defines how the rest of the layout will have to fit around. 

 

And the (relatively) complex pointwork to the left of the station is this bit. 

 

 

And a close showing the Finetrax A5  turnout template combo.

 

I've started off with the short A5 to see if it would all fit in and seeing that it does means I could look to use the longer varieties which might look better still.

 

Next thing is to see if / how servo motors and their brackets will fit below the baseboard without fouling each other.

 

But all good so far. 

 

Cheers for having a read. Andy

 

Edited October 16, 2022 by AndyB

[AndyB]

A revised plan for your consideration.

 

 

Change:

Bay platform switched to the upside using a 3-way point.

 

Moving the bay frees up space in front of  the downside platform for scenic development (row of houses on a country lane leading to overbridge to RHS of platforms).

 

Potential change:

Remove crossover (red) between main running lines.

This reduces the length of the pointwork, consequently alll pointwork would fit on one board. Less points means less complexity and possible reliability issues?

Running lines to the left half of the layout would be uncluttered.

 

Down pick-up goods shunting wouldn't be impacted as far as I can deduce.

 

Shunting Up pickup goods would be impacted. However, interest would still be there with the refuge siding. 

 

Thoughts anyone?

 

 

 

 

 

[Keith Addenbrooke]

Hi Andy, I’m not an expert on Southern practice, but I’m not convinced, sorry.  The thing that I’m not sure works is having the Bay Platform access / egress and the headshunt / goods access loop as the same section of track?  To my mind there could be too many conflicting moves, and I wouldn’t know where to start with signalling as presumably that becomes a passenger line, not part of the goods yard?  
 

If the bay is just a siding for NPCCS (eg: parcels / newspaper traffic or even horses) would it need a facing access, or might it be treated more like a third Goods Siding?  Just a thought - others will know of appropriate prototype situations for reference, Keith.

[Flying Pig]

In brief, I don't like it 😉

 

I don't mind the loss of the inner crossover, providing you are not going to need to run round terminating passenger trains (I think you mentioned that you intend to use push pull trains?).  However, I don't like the bay springing from the goods yard, or the changes you have made to the pointwork at the left hand end.

 

The line parallel to the up main is a siding not a loop.  It should have a plain trailing crossover to the up main at station end and a crossover to the down main over a diamond or single slip at t'other.  With the red crossover removed, you'll need to make it a slip to provide at least one crossover between the main lines.

 

The up goods can exchange wagons with the siding without running round, though outgoing wagons will need to be positioned beforehand.  That can be done when the down goods shunts the yard, but in real life might well be done by non-locomotive means (a horse or more likely men with pinch bars).

 

The bay needs to be connected to the main without going through the goods yard, or the latter will need to be locked and signalled to passenger standards, which will make shunting very inconvenient, and wagons standing in the siding will block access to the bay.  I think the bay is better on the down side with trains arriving in the up platform then shunting over the crossover and,setting back into the bay.  I'm sure you can find examples of the bay being on the arrival side, but it does mean the crossover would need facing point locks so the departing train full of passengers can run over it, which I guess any frugal company would want to avoid.

 

Edited October 17, 2022 by Flying Pig

[AndyB]

Thanks guys.

 

I'm getting a sense that there needs to be a return to status quo ante, albeit with the change to the crossover as Flying Pig rightly identifies.

 

Thanks both for taking the time to critique it.

 

A while back there was a proposal to have a crossover on the river bridge. Which obviously posed the challenge of where to put the servos. 

 

As ever there's a prototype for everything. And I'd bet this bridge over the river Arun might have been adapted to disguise a couple of servos!

 

For anyone interested Rudgwick station was on a 1 in 80 gradient, whereas only 1 in 130 was allowed for stopping traffic. So the gradient had to be eased by building a second bridge on top of the original.  Probably won't replicate this myself but its always fun to see quirky solutions to real-world problems.

 

 

[Harlequin]

If you have houses in front of the Down platform, won't they obscure your view of the station somewhat?

 

What about swapping the goods and passenger sides of the station, so that the goods yard is at the front, and trailing into the Down. The station buildings, approach road and houses would then be behind, where they wouldn't obscure things and could happily climb the hillside up to the overbridge.

 

The bay platform could be on the Up side, the passenger side now, facing Down/Left, connected to the refuge siding with suitable crossovers and trailing connections to both Up and Down. So trains would terminate in the main Up platform then set back into the refuge siding and forward into the bay....???

 

The refuge siding connection would then be in the station, more logically under the control of the station 'box. To make room for it, either move the river left or give the refuge siding it's own single track bridge in a different style alongside the main line double track bridge.

 

Edited October 17, 2022 by Harlequin

[Flying Pig]

1 hour ago, Harlequin said:

What about swapping the goods and passenger sides of the station, so that the goods yard is at the front, and trailing into the Down. The station buildings, approach road and houses would then be behind, where they wouldn't obscure things and could happily climb the hillside up to the overbridge.

 

The bay platform could be on the Up side, the passenger side now, facing Down/Left, connected to the refuge siding with suitable crossovers and trailing connections to both Up and Down. So trains would terminate in the main Up platform then set back into the refuge siding and forward into the bay....???

 

That sounds unnecessarily complicated.  If the bay were on the up side, trains could simply terminate in it.  However, the crossover would still need to be passenger rated.

 

In fact, there doesn't have to be a bay at all.  A train can simply terminate in one platform, shunt to the other and depart from there, providing it does not have to wait for an extended period.

[The Stationmaster]

1 hour ago, Harlequin said:

If you have houses in front of the Down platform, won't they obscure your view of the station somewhat?

 

What about swapping the goods and passenger sides of the station, so that the goods yard is at the front, and trailing into the Down. The station buildings, approach road and houses would then be behind, where they wouldn't obscure things and could happily climb the hillside up to the overbridge.

 

The bay platform could be on the Up side, the passenger side now, facing Down/Left, connected to the refuge siding with suitable crossovers and trailing connections to both Up and Down. So trains would terminate in the main Up platform then set back into the refuge siding and forward into the bay....???

 

The refuge siding connection would then be in the station, more logically under the control of the station 'box. To make room for it, either move the river left or give the refuge siding it's own single track bridge in a different style alongside the main line double track bridge.

 

 

13 minutes ago, Flying Pig said:

 

That sounds unnecessarily complicated.  If the bay were on the up side, trains could simply terminate in it.  However, the crossover would still need to be passenger rated.

 

In fact, there doesn't have to be a bay at all.  A train can simply terminate in one platform, shunt to the other and depart from there, providing it does not have to wait for an extended period.

1.  Nothing at all wrong with having a bay platform that has a a facing point entrance off a running line.  If the service is such that a bay is needed it can make good sense to use it to terminate trains as well as start them away.

2.  Nothing intrinsically wrong with having a bay reached from the running line via a line which is also used to access the yard.  but it obviously can't serve both functions at the same time and the yard needs to be trapped anyway.

3.  I don't like the 3 way point being used like that although you might find a prototype for it somewhere.

4.  Having said all that operationally (i.e. in terms of model railway operation) especially for shunting it makes more sense to have the goods yard at the front of the layout.  Whether or not it also needs a lay by siding/refuge type facility in order to access iy t and act as a headshunt  (but how many wayside goods yards had headshunts?) would be a separate issue - depends on the density of service you intend to run.

5,  Depending on the overall feel you want there's no reason why the bay platform and the goods yard can't be on the same side of the running line but you need to think very carefully about their respective patterns of use and any conflicts (reference Item 1 above for one way of doing it - there are other ways.

 

(my idealised layout plan has both the goods yard - it's only a couple of sidings  - and the bay on the same side of the running lines and at the front of the layout.)

[AndyB]

Some very interesting ideas and considerations being made.

 

To address Phil's point about a row of houses obscuring the bay platform. My idea was to have the ground drop away yo thr front of the board so that these houses would mostly be below track height. Or thereabouts. Also I'm making the assumption that the viewer will look lightly down onto the layout rather than straight across at it. 

 

Mike mentioned thinking carefully about conflicts between an autotrain departing the bay using the goods siding to regain the running lines and any goods wagons on said siding. Certainly there would be potential for conflicts. Although you could see it as an operating challenge that brings operational interest.

 

But on balance I'm minded to return this to the down side and include the trailing crossover between the running lines.

 

Flying Pig suggested terminating and starting autotrains on the main platform. Yes, but. In my mind the running lines are going to be quite busy so local trains would need to clear off them quite quickly; a dedicated bay departure platform would achieve this. 

 

In terms of prototype a local station had its M7 autotrain arrival on the up platform and departures from a bay on the down side. Goods sidings were on the up side. 

 

[AndyB]

A quick question if I may.

 

In my book research I've found a prototype of the station track plan that is proposed. I'm not sure what type of map it was extracted from but it shows both rails of each track. Circa 1950s/60s.

 

I certainly don't want to breach copyright by reproducing it here. So can anyone point me to an online resource that I could share?

 

I've tried the National Library of Scotland site to no avail - but it may be that I wasn't searching their resource correctly! 

 

Thanks in advance for any pointers. 

 

[Flying Pig]

13 minutes ago, AndyB said:

A quick question if I may.

 

In my book research I've found a prototype of the station track plan that is proposed. I'm not sure what type of map it was extracted from but it shows both rails of each track. Circa 1950s/60s.

 

I certainly don't want to breach copyright by reproducing it here. So can anyone point me to an online resource that I could share?

 

I've tried the National Library of Scotland site to no avail - but it may be that I wasn't searching their resource correctly! 

 

Thanks in advance for any pointers. 

 

 

What's the station Andy?  You may not get a large scale plan on the NLS as late as the 1950s as their 25" series seems to finish earlier but it might not have changed in the intervening period.

 

It would be useful to look for a signal diagram on the usual sites too.  In fact I think they are more helpful when layout planning, at least as a starting point.

[AndyB]

Hi Simon.

It's Bentley (BTY).

Andy

 

I found it, and plenty of photos in:

Woking to Alton, Country Railway Routes

Vic Mitchell  & Keith Smith.

Middleton Press.

Edited October 21, 2022 by AndyB
Additional info

[The Stationmaster]

Andy - have a look here although the only 25" map they list is 1892-1914. - when it was on a single line.   It is a very difficult place to find as there are some many places with the same, much like Whitchurch it would seem.  You best bet on any map search is to do what I did and look for Farnham the 'move along the railway' to get to Bentley

 

https://maps.nls.uk/geo/explore/side-by-side/#zoom=16.0&lat=51.18091&lon=-0.86849&layers=168&right=ESRIWorld

 

here's the 'box diagram

 

https://www.s-r-s.org.uk/html/srn/R30.htm

 

And a  pic of the signal box

 

https://signalbox.org/photo-gallery/london-south-western-railway/bentley/

 

Try inserting the following into your search engine. I got some good results from doing that -

 

'Bentley Hampshire railway station in old photos'

Edited October 22, 2022 by The Stationmaster

[Harlequin]

52 minutes ago, The Stationmaster said:

Andy - have a look here although the only 25" map they list is 1892-1914. - when it was on a single line.   It is a very difficult place to find as there are some many places with the same, much like Whitchurch it would seem.  You best bet on any map search is to do what I did and look for Farnham the 'move along the railway' to get to Bentley

 

https://maps.nls.uk/geo/explore/side-by-side/#zoom=16.0&lat=51.18091&lon=-0.86849&layers=168&right=ESRIWorld

 

here's the 'box diagram

 

https://www.s-r-s.org.uk/html/srn/R30.htm

 

And a  pic of the signal box

 

https://signalbox.org/photo-gallery/london-south-western-railway/bentley/

 

Try inserting the following into your search engine. I got some good results from doing that -

 

'Bentley Hampshire railway station in old photos'

 

I think NLS maps is doing something funny in it's "geo-located" mode because on the 1909 map (without geo-location) the line is double:

https://maps.nls.uk/view/105984064

 

There are two crossovers (one to the NE of the station). The goods yard is accessible from both directions. The long siding trailing into the Up line looks like a mileage siding to me because the ground is built up and levelled all along side it.

 

[AndyB]

Hi Phil.

That's exactly the map view I wanted to share. So a BIG thank you for tracking it down. 

 

There's an 1870 map which shows the line as single. It was doubled sometime between.

 

From what I can tell it remained doubled and the goods yard intact until the mid 1960s. In recent times its been single track between Farnham and Alton. There is talk about doubling it again and also introducing aggregate traffic at Holybourne (where the oil terminal is/was).

 

The branch down to Bordon was handled by an M7, known as the Bentley Flyer. 

 

Around 1966 the line saw a lot of diversionary traffic due to engineering on the mainline.

 

EMUs look like 2-BILs and later 4-VEPs as opposed to the 4-CEPs in my own collection. 

 

[AndyB]

Thanks Mike @The Stationmaster. The signalling diagram is very useful, as are the other links. From one of the photos in the book I mentioned I was hoping to show a 3-way point, as per your earlier point about their rarity. But it looks like one isn't present here after all. 

Andy

 

 

[AndyB]

I've not posted on this thread for a while as I've been finishing my existing layout. One particular feature of the current layout which will be particularly hard to say goodbye to is the girder bridge.

 

 

So I've been wondering if it could feature on the new layout. A challenge is it's height, which dictates the height of the trackbed along the whole layout. And in turn the way land would drop down to the river along tge front where the millpond will be. 

 

So this is a question for budding engineers. Could I cut off 2 or 3 sections at each end of tge bridge to lower it? Or would that mean the weight of the bridge was pushing out, rather than down?

 

 

The girder bridge is quite imposing snd would dwarf the mill pond and watermill. So I've moved the bridge to the left, removed rhe refuge siding and extended the headshunt to serve thus purpose. Its now morphed into an almost replica of BTY in the 50s / 60s! 

 

I'd really appreciate some feedback on these (potential) changes if at all possible.