Eastwood Town - A tribute to Gordon's modelling.

[gordon s]

Oh Martin, don't say that! I have these beautiful Downes buildings that will the centre piece of the whole layout.

 

They are a must have....

 

There are two plans out there Ian and one has been turned through 90 degrees.

 

The layout is offset to one side to give at least 350mm height for buildings on the edge of the left hand side of the board. Once you get to ET station building the clearance is probably around 1200mm. On the right hand edge, clearance is not an issue as it is purely storage. The roof line is the black line with the stairs in purple.

 

Hope that makes sense.

 

[number6]

It may not work but how about moving the hidden section to the bottom right hand corner around above the stairs - so the station sits right where it is now but on one end of the scenic section - see Waverley West or I think Tony Wright had a layout called Stoke Summit[?] many years ago designed a little like this. A Bitsa station. Then you can model a long wide curve at the other end and the sidings at just one end of the station. The fan of loops then begins about 1/3rd of the way down the opposite wall. You can also carry lines out of the hidden section without all the associated pointwork required to bring them together from the loops before branching out again in the scenic area? Am I making myself clear here?!

 

The only other suggestion to give a sense of place [ECML] - did not the GN have long strings of double and single slips right across the mainlines in many locations rather than full double junctions? Used mostly by pickup goods etc. ?

[gordon s]

Thanks number 6. I briefly thought along those lines as Waverly West is so well done, but put it on a backburner at the time as I was so engossed in this one to pursue it further. I would still want 5-6' of platform showing, but the fact it goes straight into the storage yard will simplify matter again.

 

I'm nearly Templotted out for today, so what I think I'll do is carry on down this route as it stands and see how it looks. I'm quite open to the idea and certainly won't dismiss it. It has lots of merit and could be the answer ultimately.

 

We're certainly getting nearer...

 

I'm trying to avoid double and single slips if possible as my pointwork skills are not quite that good yet. I have build three or four and they did work, but remember thinking, never again...

 

At present I modded the existing design I'm working on to have slow/fast in each direction plus goods up and down. That does away with all crossovers completely, but that's not to say, fast fitted freight can come from the storage lines as per passenger stock.

[martin_wynne]

Oh Martin, don't say that! I have these beautiful Downes buildings that will the centre piece of the whole layout.

 

They are a must have....

 

OK . But in that case where on the present plan does the MPD go?

 

I have uploaded the Templot .box file at:

 

http://85a.co.uk/for...1669&forum_id=1

 

It's not intended to be used as-is, you simply wanted some idea how to arrange the transitions.

 

regards,

 

Martin.

[number6]

Understood about the slips - I've a feeling that they were mentioned on RMWeb before in that the real railway avoided using the older formations of them on the ECML if they could because of the risk of derailment. Even if you don't do the bitsa thing I still think running lines off the end of the scenic section at an over bridge or similar break would aid the plan? I've a fleeing that the duplications at each end is what cramps the design and makes you think you don't have the space!

 

I daren't say how Temploted out I've been in the past with Martin on this thread. But I really enjo printing it out and shuffling the pages around on site. I've found this to be very useful in getting out of the 'on-screen' mindset. Being able to see that I can just move some pointwork down a bit that looked perfect on the plan or get an idea of view lines etc has been invaluable.

[Peter Kazmierczak]

Gordon,

You seem to be in danger of the whole layout being constrained by a, albeit beautiful, set of station buildings.

 

Regards,

Peter

[Peter Kazmierczak]

Gordon,

Just another thought. Might be worth having a look at the plan of Grantham. Lots of engine changing, 4-tracks to the south with double junction at the north end. Loops alongside the station plus large loco shed.

 

Some elements might appeal.

 

Regards,

Peter

[gordon s]

Thanks Peter. I have a plan of Grantham in Great Northern Engine Sheds, so will look at that later.

 

Here's the latest plan using Martin's transition curves. Still a lot to do, but it's looking promising. I'm now Templotted out having done 8 hours. Time for a beer methinks.

 

Thanks guys, a productive day.

 

[gordon s]

Thanks Paul. I noticed the plan in the last link is quite different from the pics which show four tracks through the station whereas the plan only shows two. I'm going to do a bit more searching and see what comes up. I have some limiting factors in as much the pitch of the platforms is set by the footbridge access, so four through tracks can't be done without a major rebuild. That is an option, but I have no idea what the cost would be.

 

I know they are a limiting factor, but they remind me so much of my youth and the local LNER stations, they were a no brainer.

 

I'm sure GN won't mind but here's a pic of them in their former suroundings...

 

Edited October 28, 2011 by gordon s

[trisonic]

You have to use those station buildings!!!!!!! Just to reiterate.........

Enjoy your beer.

Best, Pete.

[gordon s]

Thanks Pete. By the way I wasn't ignoring your suggestion of going across the room, just forgot to comment. That gives two problems. One is the return curve at the pointy end of the triangle and two it would involve ducking under the hypoteneuse to access the the opposite side and my back wouldn't stand up to bending. If you recall, that's why I had to ditch an earlier design in order to raise the baseboards to a reasonable level.

 

The beer was great, so on some Merlot now....and that's even better with a half decent chilli. My missus does a terrific one and they always taste better on day two.

Edited October 28, 2011 by gordon s

[gordon s]

Meant to say Martin, this is the shed design from an earlier incarnation. Just a rough sketch with all the approach pointwork etc still to be added. I guess I need to take the shed off a dedicated access siding rather than straight off the slow line.

 

[pwr]

How an earth have I missed this one - great layout

 

 

Paul R

[martin_wynne]

Meant to say Martin, this is the shed design from an earlier incarnation. Just a rough sketch with all the approach pointwork etc still to be added.

Hi Gordon,

 

How are you going to access the operating space beyond the MPD if your back won't allow ducking under?

 

Reverting to my previous crazy idea. The branch terminus is now a dummy junction station instead, where you can use the station buildings. The main lines at the rear of the junction are dummy, and most of the station yards etc. are assumed to be off-scene. However, you can have locomotive workings off the main lines down the branch to visit the MPD and back. The main line platforms at the junction could also see an occasional special off the branch terminating. This is all built over the storage tracks.

 

The running lines below are all level with little complex pointwork, so you could have them built and running quite quickly while you build the rest of the layout. Only short trains and light engines use the gradient up the branch, so it can be quite steep and there is room for a longish run up. It can be single or double track.

 

I don't know if this matches any prototype location. I'm fairly sure it will be rejected out of hand, so I have done only a quick 5 minute sketch:

 

 

regards,

 

Martin.

[gordon s]

The MPD is a peninsula board and accessible on three sides, so there is no ducking under at all. I designed it that way for an earlier version. This is what it should look like.

 

Thanks for the new suggestions, Martin. I'm bordering on overload at the moment, so would like to finish your transition curve version and then pick up on Number 6's suggestion of hiding part of the station platforms. It's very well done on Waverley West and I'm sure it was done on one of the exhibition layouts, not Stoke Bank. I think it was Wibdenshaw and remember being very impressed indeed.

 

http://www.emgauge70...wibdenshaw.html

 

[Peter Kazmierczak]

Gordon,

I think the "modelling one end of a station" has a lot of merit. Particularly if your aim is to watch the trains go by.

 

If you were ever a trainspotter, think back to those days. Duffle bag would be dumped on a platform trolley and there we'd sit all day. Usually at one end of a station - Crewe (north end), Derby (south end), Cardiff (east end), Bristol (west end), B'ham NS (west), etc. etc.

 

Regards,

Peter

[martin_wynne]

The MPD is a peninsula board and accessible on three sides, so there is no ducking under at all.

Hi Gordon,

 

As drawn there is only 2ft at the end of it in which to fit a platform, the main station building, a station forecourt -- and you. You may have to align it at an angle rather than square across the operating space.

 

regards,

 

Martin.

[trisonic]

I see, when you come up the stairs you pop up in the centre?

 

Best, Pete.

[gordon s]

Spent the last few days working on the continuous plan and if I'm honest it still looks a bit 'trainsetty' to me. I'm just amazed how 8' platforms and large radius curves just gobble up the space...and I thought 18' square would be ample.

 

The earlier plan was too one dimensional, so I've raised the whole outer goods loops to be able to get a plate girder bridge over the main lines and across to a low profile industrial area that will go someway to disguise the storage area. The whole outer loops are raised as a self contained unit and this eliminates gradients.

 

Going full circle the terminus looked far better, but had added complications. A terminus plus storage would be easy on an end to end basis, but then I lose the continuous run. Of course this is very early days and I have much to add once I'm happy with the concept.

 

I'm going to sleep on it as there's no rush whatsoever. This is simply a planning exercise I have to go through. The original ET has not been touched and could be resurrected, albeit perhaps simplified in some way. I'm not unhappy as such and this is proving a great exercise. After all you have to go through this process to eliminate all those 'what if' moments that continually bug you.

 

[trisonic]

Gordon,

Hellaver reach across the bottom (in the plan) middle. I make it over 4 feet. Do you need such a quantity of storage tracks? The outside track looks like it could hold three full length trains (maybe).

 

Just playing Devil's Advocate..............

 

Best, Pete.

[CWJ]

Gordon,

 

I always enjoy watching your plans develop, and although I was sad to see the previous layout plan go, it's far better to stick with something you feel happier with. The transition curves add so much realism to this design, so I don't think you need to worry about it looking like a train set.

 

Just one observation - with the exception of the engine shed lines, there doesn't seem to be a means of getting trains between the inner circuit and the middle circuit (and likewise the middle and the outer). If you were to put in a crossover or two, then trains would have a wider choice of fiddle yard roads, so you may not need as much storage space.

 

Hope this helps. Cheers,

 

Will

 

PS. In response to Pete's comment, if the branch line terminus were to be located directly above some of the fiddle yard roads you could reduce the depth of the baseboards a bit. Note that the BLT needn't cover up the pointwork at either end of the fiddle yard, just the middle bit.

[Loxborough]

Quick one from the left field...

 

I did some serious looking at modelling Grantham earlier this year (before I settled on the far simpler Tallington...) and I could have pretty much done it, including it in a 4 track (ECML) roundy roundy but there would have been no room for a fiddle yard.

 

So what, I thought to myself.

 

Grantham had miles of sidings around it, almost certainly more than enough to store all the stock I am ever going to have, and prototype photos show all sorts of stock, from shiny ECML joint stock to 50 year old unfitted mineral wagons lying all over the place (OK, so maybe it was a bit more organised than that, but you know what I mean). Plus a big shed. So, the operational concept would be to have the pilot busy around the place making up the trains, bring the train loco off shed and on to its train and set it on its roundy roundy way while the pilot set to getting the next train ready (or, alternatively, breaking up a train that has come off the roundy roundy and storing its various components in the sidings. So at any one time we have four running on the roundy roundy plus one (or even two?) pilots busy AND locos going to and from shed.

 

I thought that would work rather well.

 

Didn't do it as I just got frightened at the idea of hand building all that track (and the way I do track takes ages).

 

All that to say, do you really need a fiddle yard? Why not a biggish station (for which you have cracking buildings) with integrated goods yard lots of sidings, and the steam shed on the other long leg of the roundy roundy?

 

Just a thought.

 

Planning a layout is fun.

Injecting random thoughts into someone else's planning is even funner, and carries no responsibility!

 

George

[cromptonnut]

Injecting random thoughts into someone else's planning is even funner, and carries no responsibility!

 

... or resulting financial outlay/risk

[Satan's Goldfish]

Without wanting to overload you with ideas, in your last post you mention going full circle in your planning back to having a terminus but still wanting continuous run. I'm also more of a fan of watching things run but find terminuses more visually appealing and for this reason I always find the type of design drawn very crudley below quite attractive.

 

Obvious draw back for you would be a bridge going across the centre of the room, but i'm sure with the amazing quality of your carpentry we've seen so far creating a lifting section would be easy!

 

Was just a thought...

 

[artizen]

I think George is on to something. The real railway didn't have fiddle yards or storage lines hidden somewhere - they had sidings and shunting engines. If you bring some of the storage lines around to the left and make them a place for storing passenger stock and move some existing storage across to the right and incorporate the loco shed and turntable for loco storage that will give you just as much track space for storing your collection - it is just on display at all times (just like the real thing!). This would then give you the flexibility to have a bigger space to model the goods lines and branch.

 

At the moment, the area of storage is too deep to be able to deal with stock and it is a very large area of hidden track (I am a scenery builder). Maybe George and I are trying to say that moving some of the track from the bottom to the sides will actually make this layout far easier to operate.

 

Just a thought.