Perchance to dream ... Branch Line Terminii in TT

[NCB]

No suitable rolling available, so no point in talking about BLTs. Right? Like heck we won't 😁  Me, I'm convinced a major player will soon enter that market.

 

I'm interested in the space BLTs take  up.  Your own ideas/plans welcome.  

[InTheTrainShed]

Watching with interest - I do hope you are right , i am itching to build something ( small ) for TT120 

[Rivercider]

I hope TT is successful in the UK. But if a stock becomes available to make a branch line terminus

feasible then I would not expect many 'new' track plans to emerge. Rather some of the favourite

existing 4mm track plans would work better and look more realistic when allowed to 'breathe'

in the relatively greater space available,

 

cheers

 

[NCB]

East Bay Plan A

 

South Coast GWR, can handle 3 coaches. 150 cm by 40 cm. Branch heads north via 2 villages to mainline junction. Traffic; 

• autocoach and 48XX regular service to junction
• B set with small prairie service beyond junction to nearest town. Sometimes has through coach attached
• 3-coach corridor excursion sets, locos whatever is available
• local pickup goods; 2251, pannier or prairie.
•  
•  
   

For FY I'd use traverser maybe 80 cm long.

[Keith Addenbrooke]

Hi @NCB.  

 

For a GW branch line, the Peco Station building and Goods Shed kits are an easy choice (it’s why I bought them 😀).  Are they the ones in your plan?  Personally, I think the Signal Box is a bit larger than some - Ashburton, for example, didn’t have one at all - but being based on a Severn Valley prototype is another justifiable choice already available: @Jeff Smith’s thread shows one built up.  
 

Osbourn’s Models Arch Laser kits may be another option, but they’re a company I’ve never bought from so can’t comment further.

 

The original Railway Modeller launch articles included a couple of branch line track plans using Peco track - although my understanding is the Peco small points have come out larger than envisaged at that stage, which affects one of the plans.

 

None of the above will be news to anyone familiar with this Forum of course.

 

What I would suggest however would be this - if you have the space, take a plan for a OO branch line and build it in TT in the same space (the fiddle yard could be smaller to save some space).  Edit: I’ve just seen @Rivercider said this before me, sorry.  I note @NCB’s response below: fair point.

 

Another alternative would be to take a prototype plan and see how much room it needs in TT:120.

 

East Bay plan A above is quite conventional - one idea would be to see how it looks if you try and introduce some gentle curves, or even just angle the whole thing so it doesn’t run parallel to the baseboard edges.

 

Other than that my main observation would be that the coal siding is probably a bit short for a steam era branch, and a bit to tight in the goods yard for easy road access (the old rule of thumb is to leave enough access room for a horse and cart to turn round).  Just a thought.

 

Hope that’s OK, Keith.

 

Edited April 1, 2023 by Keith Addenbrooke
Add clarifying comment

[NCB]

54 minutes ago, Rivercider said:

I hope TT is successful in the UK. But if a stock becomes available to make a branch line terminus

feasible then I would not expect many 'new' track plans to emerge. Rather some of the favourite

existing 4mm track plans would work better and look more realistic when allowed to 'breathe'

in the relatively greater space available,

 

cheers

 

CJF said that. But space is a real issue for many people.

[NCB]

35 minutes ago, Keith Addenbrooke said:

Hi @NCB.  

 

For a GW branch line, the Peco Station building and Goods Shed kits are an easy choice (it’s why I bought them 😀).  Are they the ones in your plan?  Personally, I think the Signal Box is a bit larger than some - Ashburton, for example, didn’t have one at all - but being based on a Severn Valley prototype is another justifiable choice already available: @Jeff Smith’s thread shows one built up.  
 

Osbourn’s Models Arch Laser kits may be another option, but they’re a company I’ve never bought from so can’t comment further.

 

The original Railway Modeller launch articles included a couple of branch line track plans using Peco track - although my understanding is the Peco small points have come out larger than envisaged at that stage, which affects one of the plans.

 

None of the above will be news to anyone familiar with this Forum of course.

 

What I would suggest however would be this - if you have the space, take a plan for a OO branch line and build it in TT in the same space (the fiddle yard could be smaller to save some space).

 

Another alternative would be to take a prototype plan and see how much room it needs in TT:120.

 

East Bay plan A above is quite conventional - one idea would be to see how it looks if you try and introduce some gentle curves, or even just angle the whole thing so it doesn’t run parallel to the baseboard edges.

 

Other than that my main observation would be that the coal siding is probably a bit short for a steam era branch, and a bit to tight in the goods yard for easy road access (the old rule of thumb is to leave enough access room for a horse and cart to turn round).  Just a thought.

 

Hope that’s OK, Keith.

 

 

 

 

Yep, all except the engine shed are based on the  Peco kits. The plan is conventional; plenty of options for people to try. If they have the space.   I did wonder about placing the coal yard down the bottom.

[Jeff Smith]

The Peco goods shed is perhaps a bit too large for the station building.  I think it would be feasible to use two kits and make a longer building.

[Les1952]

One thing omitted on most BLT designs is trap/catch points, of which I think you need two, with a long wait before Peco get round to them....

 

Les

[NCB]

16 hours ago, Jeff Smith said:

The Peco goods shed is perhaps a bit too large for the station building.  I think it would be feasible to use two kits and make a longer building.

Think it would look ok; the GS is smaller than most and looks it.  

[Porfuera]

1 hour ago, NCB said:

Think it would look ok; the GS is smaller than most and looks it.  

 

I don't know whether you drew the goods shed to scale on your plan but I looked up the size online recently (because I have one sitting on my table and I wanted to know the size for my own planning!) and it is:

 

Length 100mm; Width 110mm - looking at the picture of it online the 100mm is the length of the track going through (as you have it, I think).

 

The station is apparently: Length 115mm; Width 47mm; Canopy projects 17mm

 

Assuming you have 50mm squares then the building sizes look right on your plan and to my eye the building sizes look OK and it looks like a nice plan.

 

Neil.

[Jeff Smith]

If my math is correct TT:120 is approximately 5/8th of 4mm so take any OO plan and reduce to 5/8ths.  This would allow my very simple GWR BLT at 9ft without f/y to be accommodated in the same length with f/y.  The current 9ft layout comprises two 3ft boards with the station and another with just a single approach line to give some spaciousness, although I have cheated a bit by using a three-way point at the throat.....  In TT this would be a neat little layout at only 12" wide......or at 2' wide could be nicely expansive!

Edited April 3, 2023 by Jeff Smith
Added info

[NCB]

East Bay Plan B

 

Cut down version of A.  120 cm by 40 cm. Traverser FY maybe 65 cm. Handles 2-coach trains, loses bay and siding. Think it shows length needed for 2-coacxh loop with loco release either end. Feeling plan itself can be improved. 

[Porfuera]

19 hours ago, NCB said:

East Bay Plan B

 

Cut down version of A.  120 cm by 40 cm. Traverser FY maybe 65 cm. Handles 2-coach trains, loses bay and siding. Think it shows length needed for 2-coacxh loop with loco release either end. Feeling plan itself can be improved. 

 

That one would make a very nice little TT:120 starter project.

[D9020 Nimbus]

Upwold

This is a TT:120 version of the Roy Link plan from the article The Art of Compromise. It is for Hornby track but requires one Tillig straight track, The part codes are shown on the diagram. Grid=100mm. The sizes of the Peco GWR buildings are used for the goods shed and station building.

 

 

Edited April 4, 2023 by D9020 Nimbus

[Les1952]

4 hours ago, D9020 Nimbus said:

Upwold

This is a TT:120 version of the Roy Link plan from the article The Art of Compromise. It is for Hornby track but requires one Tillig straight track, The part codes are shown on the diagram. Grid=100mm. The sizes of the Peco GWR buildings are used for the goods shed and station building.

 

 

 

To be nearer prototype 8007 needs replacing by a left point and a short headshunt.

[Keith Addenbrooke]

29 minutes ago, Les1952 said:

 

To be nearer prototype 8007 needs replacing by a left point and a short headshunt.

Hi Les, that’s a new one on me - do explain more.  Thanks, Keith.

[Les1952]

54 minutes ago, Keith Addenbrooke said:

Hi Les, that’s a new one on me - do explain more.  Thanks, Keith.

As things stand your main line out needs protection against things rolling out.  That would be in the form of a trap point or a headshunt.  you are also shunting on the main line which the prototype avoided.

 

To be absolutely correct the station and signal box should be swapped so the other line is the lead out with a crossover of two 8009 points instead of the 8008, which would bring the goods line into the station part way along the platform (plenty of prototypical examples of that), and leave the present exit line as a headshunt.  this means nothing can roll out of the goods sidings unless pulled by an engine, and a loco shunting the yard doesn't go onto the running line.  You would have a home signal at the end of the platform by the station building, and shunting moves may not pass that point.  Giving a headshunt means you don't need shunting signals.

[Steamport Southport]

On 01/04/2023 at 19:56, Jeff Smith said:

The Peco goods shed is perhaps a bit too large for the station building.  I think it would be feasible to use two kits and make a longer building.

 

The station building that went with the goods shed is about the same size. I wouldn't worry about the goods shed being too big for the station.

 

Bridport West Bay

 

http://www.disused-stations.org.uk/b/bridport_west_bay/index.shtml

 

Bovey Tracey

 

http://www.disused-stations.org.uk/b/bovey/

 

I'm thinking that Bovey Station maybe wasn't seen as being "pretty" enough, had too many alterations or they didn't manage to measure it.  I must admit Bridport West Bay is a bit more ornate with those chimneys.

 

The other Bridport station even had waiting shelters not a million miles away from the one PECO has announced. So I'm wondering whether they are based on something local as well. 

 

http://www.disused-stations.org.uk/b/bridport/

 

 

 

Jason

[melmoth]

West Bay station building is a William Clarke building. He also provided similar designs of varying sizes for the Abbotsbury branch, the Kingsbridge branch, the Ledbury - Gloucester line, and one of the Welsh border branches (Presteigne or Kington possibly), and maybe more, so there's a good geographic spread for a GWR branch station using the Peco kit. 

 

If I remember correctly, @Bulwell Hall wrote an article in the British Railway Journal (issue 8 or 9?) about Clarke's buildings which would give chapter and verse.

[Keith Addenbrooke]

10 hours ago, Les1952 said:

As things stand your main line out needs protection against things rolling out.  That would be in the form of a trap point or a headshunt.  you are also shunting on the main line which the prototype avoided.

 

To be absolutely correct the station and signal box should be swapped so the other line is the lead out with a crossover of two 8009 points instead of the 8008, which would bring the goods line into the station part way along the platform (plenty of prototypical examples of that), and leave the present exit line as a headshunt.  this means nothing can roll out of the goods sidings unless pulled by an engine, and a loco shunting the yard doesn't go onto the running line.  You would have a home signal at the end of the platform by the station building, and shunting moves may not pass that point.  Giving a headshunt means you don't need shunting signals.

Thanks Les, I agree about the trap point, which would be essential - I was basing the rest of my thinking on Fairford as the original inspiration behind the plan, which didn’t have a headshunt on the loop (it did have a short loading dock protecting the running line from the Goods Shed).  

The key thing about Fairford of course was that it was never supposed to be a terminus so wasn’t designed as such.

 

Thanks for the extra explanation - makes sense, Keith.

[D9020 Nimbus]

Yes, the track plan for The Art of Compromise was loosely based on Fairford, and I more-or-less copied the original Roy Link track plan (my version is slightly straighter, due to the constraints of the Hornby track).

 

Fairford is also very much longer. Another plan inspired by Fairford was Iain Rice's Broadwell Green. I'll have to look at that sometime too.

 

The same track plan can be produced in a shorter length using Tillig track. The same comments about prototypicality apply.

 

 

 

[NCB]

On 02/04/2023 at 14:42, Jeff Smith said:

If my math is correct TT:120 is approximately 5/8th of 4mm so take any OO plan and reduce to 5/8ths.  This would allow my very simple GWR BLT at 9ft without f/y to be accommodated in the same length with f/y.  The current 9ft layout comprises two 3ft boards with the station and another with just a single approach line to give some spaciousness, although I have cheated a bit by using a three-way point at the throat.....  In TT this would be a neat little layout at only 12" wide......or at 2' wide could be nicely expansive!

Problem is that things don't scale. Peco/Hornby points are much more generous than CJF say used in his 00 plans. .

[D9020 Nimbus]

That's right. The Hornby points are only 2mm shorter than Setrack points in OO, and I think some of CJF's plans used smaller points than that; Hornby Dublo points were 15” radius.

[Jeff Smith]

My GWR BLT is in P4 so I think it would scale ok except I would have to use two points in place of the 3 way!  A long time since I built it but I think the other two points are B6!