Aldbourne

[daifly]

I won't bore you with the details of how I got to this point. Suffice it to say that over a very long period, I have built up a substantial file of abandoned layout concepts and plans.

The 7mm scale plan below was produced using Trax3 and the next job will be to 'Templot' it to check that it will work and fit, to introduce some gentle curvature, trap points etc. and to produce templates on which to build all of the trackwork. Before I start construction though I want to mock up buildings, trees etc. to get an impression of how things might finally look.

The inspiration for the plan is the GW terminus at Clevedon. This is Clevedon's signalling diagram.

An interesting aspect of the prototype layout was that there were no facing points on the approach to the station (that's a trailing single slip next to the signal box). In my imagination, the layout has been relocated. Compromises have, of necessity, been made. A couple of sidings have been omitted and there is only sufficient space to run round a two-coach B-set. The 'fixed' line within the fiddle yard is the loop headshunt as on the prototype. The cassette fiddle yard has been set to 4' long which will allow for e.g. a 2-6-2 plus B-set or a Pannier plus 5 wagons and a brake van to be accommodated. The visible segment is 12'. The fiddle yard exits will hopefully be more imaginatively disguised than by the road overbridge that I've drawn. I intend to fully signal the layout and ultimately to build a locking frame to control movements. The locos will be DCC operated and the pointwork built to O-MF standards.

The line running from the loop via a crossover on the goods shed line is planned to be a private siding to an 'off-stage' industry à la Parkstone (SR). See this and this for an idea of what I mean. I haven't decided whether it will be a dairy, brewery, or widget factory and, to be honest, it doesn't matter at this stage! This will give an extra reason for shunting coal and vans etc. through the yard thus hopefully increasing the operating potential. I have a number of industrial locos and some more kits to build so I'll have a legitimate opportunity to utilise them.

The location of the layout within the house requires operation from the front so having the brewery in front of the fiddle yard was not an option otherwise the fiddle yard would be inaccessible. The red lines show the baseboard ends. There will be 2 off 5' x 3' boards flanking a 6' x 3' board. They will be heavy at those sizes but it is not intended to exhibit so weight is not a limitation.

 

I would welcome any comments and suggestions on the concept and trackplan before I start building (and later too during the construction).

Dave

[switcher 1]

Just an observation; as your boards are 3ft wide, it is possibly going to be a challenge to lift your cassettes into position, have you considered what they will weigh when loaded.

[daifly]

Just an observation; as your boards are 3ft wide, it is possibly going to be a challenge to lift your cassettes into position, have you considered what they will weigh when loaded.

I'm hoping that at just 4ft long with a pannier and half a dozen wagons that they won't be too heavy but it's a fair point. Something else to check before I start hacking wood carpentry. Thanks for the thought.

 

Dave

[raymw]

Hi Dave,

 

Can't see the image of the track layout - image link seems to be broken - linking to another forum??

 

Best wishes,

 

Ray

[daifly]

Hi Dave,

 

Can't see the image of the track layout - image link seems to be broken - linking to another forum??

 

Best wishes,

 

Ray

Let's try again:

 

I've also reworked it to give a slightly larger loop but allowing arrival and departure from the loop which would make operation easier but perhaps less interesting. Thoughts?

 

 

Cheers, Dave

[David Siddall]

That's one nice looking plan Dave... and the loco in the Parkstone photos looks very like the Peckett modelled by Springside? :-)

 

David

[daifly]

That's one nice looking plan Dave... and the loco in the Parkstone photos looks very like the Peckett modelled by Springside? :-)

 

David

Hi David

 

I believe that 'George Jennings', the loco in the photo, is a Peckett W4. Agenoria do a kit (AM41) which represents that loco. A thread here on RMWeb cast some doubt as to the true provenance of the loco represented by the Springside kit. I have a number of the Pete Stamper-designed 0-4-0 and 0-6-0 industrials (now with Agenoria kits) to be built so they will have a few yards of track to potter about on.

 

Cheers

 

Dave

[alant]

I'm hoping that at just 4ft long with a pannier and half a dozen wagons that they won't be too heavy but it's a fair point. Something else to check before I start hacking wood carpentry. Thanks for the thought.

 

Dave

I think you may find cassettes a little unwieldy in these circumstances would hate you to have an accident with the stock. Have you considered maybe a traverser instead? You could probably get a 3 road one in looking at the available space or even a sector plate.

[Chris Turnbull]

The one observation I would make is that there does not appear to be any provision for the handling of coal.  This was a staple of just about every goods yard at one time to varying degrees, coal staithes being a ubiquitous feature.  Not sure where you'd put them with the layout you have drawn though.

 

Chris Turnbull 

[Mike Boucher]

I'm hoping that at just 4ft long with a pannier and half a dozen wagons that they won't be too heavy but it's a fair point. Something else to check before I start hacking wood carpentry. Thanks for the thought.

 

Dave

 

If weight might be an issue, have you considered using aluminum angle instead of wood for the cassettes?

[daifly]

I think you may find cassettes a little unwieldy in these circumstances would hate you to have an accident with the stock. Have you considered maybe a traverser instead? You could probably get a 3 road one in looking at the available space or even a sector plate.

My concern was to have a 'fixed' headshunt which would preclude a sector plate or traverser. With either of these latter options there is always the fag of having to keep an empty road in the correct place to allow shunting to proceed. I was also planning to use cassette module to avoid the stock handling that goes with traversers and sector plates. i.e. a short cassette for a loco, a long one for a B-set, etc. This will also cut down the overall weight for handling, but I acknowledge that it MAY be a risky technique but constant handling of locos etc WILL cause paint wear etc. I shall ponder some more. Thanks

 

Dave

[daifly]

If weight might be an issue, have you considered using aluminum angle instead of wood for the cassettes?

 

Thanks Mike. I was planning to use 1" or 25mm aluminium angle attached to c9mm ply battens. The ply would be grooved if necessary to give sufficient flange depth. The aluminium angle makes joining a couple of shorter cassettes easy and helps with the electrical issues too if I use use binder clips.

[daifly]

The one observation I would make is that there does not appear to be any provision for the handling of coal.  This was a staple of just about every goods yard at one time to varying degrees, coal staithes being a ubiquitous feature.  Not sure where you'd put them with the layout you have drawn though.

 

Chris Turnbull 

Thanks Chris

 

It's probably true to say that that was an oversight on my part, but I have a cunning plan ..........

 

Cheers

 

Dave

[daifly]

I'm most grateful for the feedback and suggestions that have been made. I have tried to incorporate them and to address some of the valid and constructive criticisms in a revised plan version. Again, the plan 'train-set' look will be softened by the introduction of very gentle curvature when the trackwork is constructed.

Having re-measured the ceiling height over the fiddle yard, there may be enough room to permit development of the industrial area in front of the traverser/cassettes. The baseboards were ordered a couple of days ago so I'll hold fire on a final decision until they have been erected and I can assess just how much headroom I have and what is a practical use of the space. I can mock up the major features of the layout and then make a considered judgement as to whether further changes are appropriate. This is the latest iteration:

To accommodate the 'back siding', the dock has been removed allowing the whole track layout to be moved further back and the industrial line now leads from the back siding rather than the loop.The plan now looks more typical of a GW BLT but has perhaps lost something in the process. I don't think I've finished changing things yet!

Cheers

Dave

 

[martin_wynne]

Again, the plan 'train-set' look will be softened by the introduction of very gentle curvature when the trackwork is constructed.

 

Hi Dave,

 

Something like this?

 

(click to see better quality)

 

Using the image wrapping function in Templot, your plan has been wrapped to a transition curve as a background guide to overlaying Templot tracks.

 

regards,

 

Martin.

[daifly]

Hi Martin

 

Exactly like that. I think it gives a more pleasing appearance to get away from straight lines. The background image manipulation facility as well as the ability to easily produce templates of curved turnouts etc are just two of the many great strengths of Templot. I shall be fully reacquainting myself with the software over the coming weeks!

 

Thanks for the input.

 

Cheers

 

Dave

[Chris Turnbull]

Good idea to gently curve the tracks and I'm pleased to see you have added a coal road. Now I don't expect you to thank me for this but by putting the coal road where it is you do not appear to have left enough room in front of your goods shed for horses and carts and later lorries to turn and back up to it for loading and unloading. This is a common mistake many modellers make so you are not alone but if you check out any erstwhile prototype goods yard there is always lots of room for vehicles. I now expect someone to come up with a prototype to demonstrate the exception to the rule!

 

Chris Turnbull

[daifly]

Thanks Chris

 

I am only too aware of the apparent lack of space behind the goods shed. Once I plot everything out to scale, there should be more room. The goods shed as shown appears larger than it really is as it has an awning at the rear which shows as 'solid' building in the footprint shown. I have more doodling to do though before the 'definitive' version gets built!

 

Please keep the constructive comments coming.

 

Cheers

 

Dave

[martin_wynne]

I am only too aware of the apparent lack of space behind the goods shed.

 

Hi Dave,

 

If you move the goods shed a little to the right, you can fill in a roadway over the coal siding to provide an access and turning area. This would make sense with the position of the weighbridge.

 

Where is the yard entrance? It affects the position of the cattle dock -- cattle can't be herded across the rails, it forms a cattle grid. The cattle dock is usually close to the yard entrance.

 

regards,

 

Martin.

[daifly]

Hi Martin

 

I've drawn a road as an end-of-scene but would prefer to use strategically placed buildings for the trains to disappear behind. In my mind, the yard entrance was to be front right after the roadway passes the weighbridge. It does mean that road access to the goods shed would be via an infilled roadway as you suggest but I quite like that idea anyway. I intend to use C & L track for plain track, but here would discretely tighten the gauge to 0-MF with some handbuilt plain track so that the flangeway at the roadway crossing is as narrow as possible. You make a good point about the cattle dock location. Further thought required.

 

Cheers

 

Dave

[daifly]

My latest versions have the loop link reinstated with either a facing or trailing formation. The facing formation is easier to shunt and has a much longer run around - that's academic though since the fiddle yard determines the length of trains that can be handled.
Trailing:

 Facing:

I've removed the road overbridge as I'm determined to have a better solution to hiding the lines' exits. The yard entrance has now been moved to the left side.
Dave

 

[2ManySpams]

Hi Dave,

 

Spooky how you have the same overall plan size 3'x16' as Pencarrow Bridge. I went for 4no 3'x4' boards as I wanted to be able to chuck them in the car and move them around the room (relatively) easily on my own. 

 

I love the curviness that Martin introduced on his plan - makes it look less trainset like. I assume you'll sort the curves out once you're happier with the overall layout. 

 

How tall will the brewery building be? Will you be able to reach / see into the fiddleyard? 

 

Overall i liked the flow of the plans in posts #14 and 15 best. (although I agree that the bridge looks a bit contrived in the position shown)

 

Probably not helped much have I?!

[daifly]

Spooky how you have the same overall plan size 3'x16' as Pencarrow Bridge. I went for 4no 3'x4' boards as I wanted to be able to chuck them in the car and move them around the room (relatively) easily on my own. 

My choice of boards was dictated more by economy and minimising joins. Larger boards are cheaper when you're buying baseboard kits! I don't intend taking the layout anywhere.

I love the curviness that Martin introduced on his plan - makes it look less trainset like. I assume you'll sort the curves out once you're happier with the overall layout. 

 

Me too. It's a pain trying to design with Trax and incorporate curves at the same time. I just have to remember that when the turnouts are curved, they get longer!

How tall will the brewery building be? Will you be able to reach / see into the fiddleyard?

 

I have indicated a brewery to indicate the type of traffic that might be routed over the industrial line. I don't intend to actually build one as there wouldn't be enough room to reach over to access the main fiddle yard.

 

Overall I liked the flow of the plans in posts #14 and 15 best. (although I agree that the bridge looks a bit contrived in the position shown)

 

The bridge has gone - permanently, I hope. It's a bit of a cliché but understandably so. I'm trying to arrange buildings so that the lines just disappear behind them.

 

Probably not helped much have I?!

 

On the contrary. All contributions are gratefully received as they make me constantly re-evaluate my plans and help me to see things that I've missed.

 

Cheers

 

Dave

 

[martin_wynne]

It's a pain trying to design with Trax and incorporate curves at the same time. I just have to remember that when the turnouts are curved, they get longer!

 

Hi Dave,

 

Why not design in Templot? Curved turnouts don't get longer. Sometimes you need to use a longer turnout to keep within a minimum radius limit, but not on the sort of gentle curve which I posted.

 

regards,

 

Martin.

[daifly]

Why not design in Templot? Curved turnouts don't get longer. Sometimes you need to use a longer turnout to keep within a minimum radius limit, but not on the sort of gentle curve which I posted.

Hi Martin

 

If I was as competent now in matters Templot as I should be then I possibly would have done. Using Trax though, in just a couple of clicks I can create, say, a tandem 3-way turnout and join it to a double slip. This enables me to form a view as to whether a particular formation flows, looks prototypical and, most important, fits. I will attempt to produce the final design using Templot to give me the templates that I need to build the track formations. I just find it easier to test and assess basic designs rapidly using Trax. There is no doubt in my mind that the templates produced by Templot are unmatched for building turnouts etc. on.

 

As for curved turnouts - I had been struggling with an earlier aborted scheme and with tight radii (c5'), a curved crossover seemed to get very long - hence my comment.

 

Cheers

 

Dave