Navigation Sidings - Iain Rice

[Rodofu]

Lost access to the email of my last account, 'rally', so after a long hiatus I am back to modelling!

 

For my first foray back into layouts, I am looking at building an EM gauge version of the above plan. I am interested in people's thoughts as to whether its a realistic plan to attempt in a reasonable timeframe. Thinking of setting it in 60/70s Birkenhead area so Class 03/08 all in a run down kind of setting

 

Thanks

[Mark Forrest]

It's a plan that I've considered building; like so many of Iain's designs it makes good use available space and should be interesting to operate.  Whether it could be built in a reasonable timescale will depend on a lot of factors.  There's a tandem turnout and a double slip for a start which could be time consuming.

 

Good luck with it, look forward to seeing progress.

[Rodofu]

You're right, the double slip is the item most putting me off given lack of experience in track building. I don't think the plan could be easily change to remove it without a good deal of loss of operation potential 

[DCB]

A link to   "Navigation Sidings" track plan would be useful.   Generally double slips are a bad idea,  usually 2ft radius, rtl in 00 or a right PITA to build.

[Harlequin]

https://www.britishfinescale.com/product-p/finetrax-em-1in7-doubleslip.htm

 

[Ramblin Rich]

1 hour ago, DCB said:

A link to   "Navigation Sidings" track plan would be useful.   Generally double slips are a bad idea,  usually 2ft radius, rtl in 00 or a right PITA to build.

It's in the Iain Rice book "An approach to Model Railway Layout Design - Finescale in small spaces" - so copyrighted.

It's unusual for Iain Rice in that he designed this one for Peco Streamline geometry rather than hand built track. I've always been a bit surprised by his statement "Peco Streamline may be coarse in its rail section and over-fussy in it's sleepering... but the geometry is spot on and conforms fully to prototype practice" - as DCB says, the slip comes down to 2 foot radius so rather tight! The Finetrax slips and other pointwork are definitely a good idea (especially if going for EM), but would affect the layout in terms of length and angles of pointwork.

[Flying Pig]

On 21/12/2022 at 21:04, Ramblin Rich said:

It's in the Iain Rice book "An approach to Model Railway Layout Design - Finescale in small spaces" - so copyrighted

 

It would still be useful if someone could sketch the basic layout so that those of us who don't have the book to hand could see it.

[AndyB]

3 hours ago, Flying Pig said:

 

It would still be useful if someone could sketch the basic layout so that those of us who don't have the book to hand could see it.

 

There you go. I've left out most of the scenic elements. 

Dimensions were 9' x 3'6"

FWIW Iain Rice envisaged this as a 1930s LMS layout. 

 

 

[Flying Pig]

2 hours ago, AndyB said:

There you go. I've left out most of the scenic elements. 

Dimensions were 9' x 3'6"

FWIW Iain Rice envisaged this as a 1930s LMS layout. 

 

Thanks, Andy - I sort of remember it now.  Does the chapter say how the kickback under the signal box was supposed to work without a runround?

[woodenhead]

14 minutes ago, Flying Pig said:

 

Thanks, Andy - I sort of remember it now.  Does the chapter say how the kickback under the signal box was supposed to work without a runround?

Wasn't it meant to be a shunting neck/holding track for the shunting loco, a train loco would pick up the wagons and propel back to the fiddleyard.

[Flying Pig]

42 minutes ago, woodenhead said:

Wasn't it meant to be a shunting neck/holding track for the shunting loco, a train loco would pick up the wagons and propel back to the fiddleyard.

 

Honestly, I think that suffers from 'too many locos' syndrome.  Shunting with the same loco that brought in the wagons seems more likely given the small size of the facility.  That seems to fit what the OP is suggesting anyway.

 

Perhaps the kickback could be reimagined as a works siding operated by a private shunter, exchanging wagons with the front two sorting sidings and running offscene behind a building at the left?

 

[woodenhead]

43 minutes ago, Flying Pig said:

 

Honestly, I think that suffers from 'too many locos' syndrome.  Shunting with the same loco that brought in the wagons seems more likely given the small size of the facility.  That seems to fit what the OP is suggesting anyway.

 

Perhaps the kickback could be reimagined as a works siding operated by a private shunter, exchanging wagons with the front two sorting sidings and running offscene behind a building at the left?

 

I seem to recall he Iain imagined more sidings than the two in the plan which would have generated sufficient shunting for a shunter.

 

I've imagined doing the layout myself in the past, with an extra siding and having it in GW period with train locos dropping off wagons from freight workings and picking up other wagons with each siding allocated to a destination. 

 

Edit: Another version of the plan I envisaged was another lead off from the sidings into the fiddlyard - perhaps replacing the engine shed which I felt was a cliche.  The siding that replaced the engine shed would go off scene but represent a colliery - so empties arrive, train loco shunts empties to siding 1, takes away siding 2 wagons which are loaded with coal.  Industrial shunter would do the opposite, taking the empties from siding one back to the fiddleyard through the replaced engine shed road and returning the loaded wagons to the other siding.    This way you are constantly switching the wagons in the fiddleyard but in a prototypical way.

Edited December 24, 2022 by woodenhead

[AndyB]

The OP suggests using an 03/08 set in the 1960s/70s. For my money this doesn't sit well with a small engine shed and coaling stage as one of the main elements. Without it the plan is little more than an inglenook.

 

So it does benefit from this added feature, but may be better as some kind of rail-served industry?

 

As with many of Iain's plans Navigation Sidings offers a nicely composed scene and I'm sure it will give a lot of pleasure creating it. 

[D-A-T]

I would redraw it using a track design program or similar to check on the clearances and turnout lengths/positions as, much as I admire Iain’s work, it can suffer from ‘optimistic pencil’ syndrome. I am currently wrestling with his Harestone plan and to achieve his aim of a platform of just under 5 feet requires a layout of approximately 7’6” not the 6’6” as drawn. 

[James Harrison]

1 hour ago, D-A-T said:

I would redraw it using a track design program or similar to check on the clearances and turnout lengths/positions as, much as I admire Iain’s work, it can suffer from ‘optimistic pencil’ syndrome. I am currently wrestling with his Harestone plan and to achieve his aim of a platform of just under 5 feet requires a layout of approximately 7’6” not the 6’6” as drawn. 

 

I found exactly the same laying out Harestone with Peco Streamline.  Also the CLC-inspired loco shed scene in the same book seems to use, shall we say, 7/8 size turnouts. 

[Gilbert]

The US books have similar characteristics...

[woodenhead]

6 hours ago, AndyB said:

The OP suggests using an 03/08 set in the 1960s/70s. For my money this doesn't sit well with a small engine shed and coaling stage as one of the main elements. Without it the plan is little more than an inglenook.

 

So it does benefit from this added feature, but may be better as some kind of rail-served industry?

 

As with many of Iain's plans Navigation Sidings offers a nicely composed scene and I'm sure it will give a lot of pleasure creating it. 

Iain imagined it with an 8F an a Pug - makes me think of a Salford based railway, proper old buidings, terraces and old factories.

[Flying Pig]

12 hours ago, woodenhead said:

I seem to recall he Iain imagined more sidings than the two in the plan which would have generated sufficient shunting for a shunter.

 

I've imagined doing the layout myself in the past, with an extra siding and having it in GW period with train locos dropping off wagons from freight workings and picking up other wagons with each siding allocated to a destination. 

 

Edit: Another version of the plan I envisaged was another lead off from the sidings into the fiddlyard - perhaps replacing the engine shed which I felt was a cliche.  The siding that replaced the engine shed would go off scene but represent a colliery - so empties arrive, train loco shunts empties to siding 1, takes away siding 2 wagons which are loaded with coal.  Industrial shunter would do the opposite, taking the empties from siding one back to the fiddleyard through the replaced engine shed road and returning the loaded wagons to the other siding.    This way you are constantly switching the wagons in the fiddleyard but in a prototypical way.

 

I like your edit - it feels right and explains the presence of a second engine.  Also as the main line engine is shunting it can appear with a cut of wagons without the train seeming undersized.  We can imagine there's a siding offstage alongside the running line with the van and the rest of a decent sized train standing on it.

 

[woodenhead]

2 minutes ago, Flying Pig said:

 

I like your edit - it feels right and explains the presence of a second engine.  Also as the main line engine is shunting it can appear with a cut of wagons without the train seeming undersized.  We can imagine there's a siding offstage alongside the running line with the van and the rest of a decent sized train standing on it.

 

Yep, that was exact vision of it and you can justify quite large locos such as Iain's image of an 8F in some small sidings.

 

Maybe, maybe, maybe.  I might just build this one day he says as looking behind his railway at a spare board with no current purpose.

[nickwood]

I too have pondered over this plan many times as the scenic vision appeals to me. I agree with the comment on the engine shed, I feel it adds little to the the scene or operational interest. 

 

I do like both of Woodenhead's ideas for improving operations. I seem to recall that IR suggested that there should be a high wall suggesting that the access to the headshunt / sidings is off a mainline behind where the fiddle yard is proposed. My idea was to remove some of the buildings to the rear left of the entrance scene to allow a line with a DMU or Autocoach depending on the period modelled to shuttle back and forth to reinforce this idea.

 

I might just get the pen and paper out again. 

[Rodofu]

The proposed amendments make total sense, and I do agree about the too many locos syndrome, having looked more into it it's hard to see a realistic prototype with the track layout as drawn up. There are a couple of other plans of a similar vein e.g Shadwell Basin in designs for urban layouts that could be interesting to build

[Flying Pig]

Well as you say, the amendments make sense and the scheme can work as a set of exchange sidings without too much alteration.  So it doesn't have to be dismissed entirely. 

[woodenhead]

I think Iain designed his plans with amendments in mind, he was setting us up with ideas for models, how we executed them was up to us to decide.