BITTON

[Ray H]

The older pictures at least are bullhead rail, presumably in 60ft lengths. It isn't easy to see on the screen but it may just be possible to count the rail lengths in the printed pictures with the aid of a magnifying glass (to see) and your fingers (to count) - before anyone says they didn't know you could count with a magnifying glass!

 

P.S. I still reckon there's a chance of 100 pages on this thread before a train runs on the layout. Keep it up lads.

[Andrew P]

Hi Andy

 

Just popped up to say hello and let you know I'm following Bitton.

It's amazing to see the amount of knowledge and help there is on the site for a location about which I knew nothing before you chose it for your (maybe) LGP.

You're filling pages faster than Lunester Lounge... Just trying to keep up can sometimes mean I've no time for modelling - despite being semi retired!

 

Regards

Alan

Morning Alan, I never even knew there was a line linking Bath to the North until Mid July so yes like you I'm amazed at the info that's come in.

 

Thanks for looking in keeping an eye on my efforts.

 

Bodge.

[Andrew P]

I'm sure if you asked the AVR they could tell you precisely how long each platform is, and how many Mk1 coaches/10ft wagons fit in each.

Morning Vanders, your absolutely right and I hadn't thought of that, I will e-mail them today.

 

The map shows is about 54 inches and that's almost right.

 

Thanks for the idea of asking them.

 

Bodge.

[Andrew P]

Just looking closer at the pictures which are great would you say the surface is tarmac even on the older shots?

Morning Mike, I think your right about the Platform surface and as for coach lengths I will only be stopping the 3 coach trains either Loco Hauled or DMU, even with 3 coaches and a Peak it would look O.K.

 

Cheers Mike.

 

Bodge.

[Andrew P]

The older pictures at least are bullhead rail, presumably in 60ft lengths. It isn't easy to see on the screen but it may just be possible to count the rail lengths in the printed pictures with the aid of a magnifying glass (to see) and your fingers (to count) - before anyone says they didn't know you could count with a magnifying glass!

 

P.S. I still reckon there's a chance of 100 pages on this thread before a train runs on the layout. Keep it up lads.

Morning Ray, thanks, that's yet another idea, cheers, and as for 100 pages well we will have to see, the Shed come on Friday, and so a lot of my time will be out there after that so things will slow down considerably.

 

Bodge

[Andrew P]

Well I still cant believe that Project Bitton has almost reached 20,000 views and 1,000 post and the Shed doesn't come until Friday.

 

Bodge.

[Donw]

Now is the time for the thoughts and plannng once you start getting track down you wouldn't want us suggesting changes every day! It is inevitable there will be some compromises if you can decide where you can compromise now it will make life easier later on.

Don

[georgeT]

Morning Bodgit,  Will we be buying stock for 'Bitton' this weekend ? or do you have enough ? always room for a new loco. hahahaha

 

George

[Andrew P]

Now is the time for the thoughts and plannng once you start getting track down you wouldn't want us suggesting changes every day! It is inevitable there will be some compromises if you can decide where you can compromise now it will make life easier later on.

Don

Morning Don, I agree entirely and I will start by laying the points roughly in position and then I can juggle things about to suit both the board joins and the curvature of the line. Looking forward to it immensely.

 

Bodge

[Andrew P]

Morning Bodgit,  Will we be buying stock for 'Bitton' this weekend ? or do you have enough ? always room for a new loco. hahahaha

 

George

Morning mate, no new Locos, no new coaches, no new wagons, no new buildings, no new scenics, in short the traders will be crying in their beer mats, the BODGE is not spending and real money.

 

The only thing I will be buying is a Totem for Bitton from the guy that makes them, the same as I had for Glen Roy.

 

Bodge.

[The Stationmaster]

One thing to note (look at Clive's mao extract) is that the platform buildings aren't opposite each other although the ends just about line up(ish).

 

I think the platform lengths will look perfectly ok as long as a local train is shorter than the platform - preferably noticeably so - and it sounds as if you're going to achieve that.

[Joseph_Pestell]

Having had a play with my track Plan today in light of Clive's excellent Map, I have been able to shorten the Platforms, originally my plan had the Platforms at almost 6ft but at scale length they should be about 52 inches. If I make them about 48 inches then I can avoid having a Platform across the board join and this also brings the A431 Road Bridge further around so that there is more scenics between the Road Bridge and the Trees to hide the Fiddle Yard entrance.

 

First the original Plan.

Scanned Track Plan 001.jpg

and the amended Plan, (sorry for the very poor quality).

Scanned Track Plan 3 001.JPG

 

It makes the Platform look far more realistic in my opinion.

 

Bodge.

 

Referring back to the map posted by Clive, I think that the distance between the two leads into the goods yard is a bit longer than you need. Should be about the same as platform length. That means that the single slip can move about 15" leftwards which:

1) Looks more likely to fit in with Jason's template;

2) Keeps the headshunt off the lifting section.

[Andrew P]

One thing to note (look at Clive's mao extract) is that the platform buildings aren't opposite each other although the ends just about line up(ish).

 

I think the platform lengths will look perfectly ok as long as a local train is shorter than the platform - preferably noticeably so - and it sounds as if you're going to achieve that.

Re the building, I did notice that last night but hey ho its close, and yes I find nothing worse than a 3,4 or 5 coach train taking up the whole of the Platform, I had that problem with Glen Roy, 2 x Mk1's and a 37 and it overhung the platform, put a 26 / 27 at the head and it was just long enough but still looked to crowded.

 

3 Coach stopping trains will be the max, either Steam or Diesel hauled, A Hymec and 3 Mk 1's or a Std 4 Tank Loco will be just perfect.

 

Bodge.

 

Bodge

[Andrew P]

Referring back to the map posted by Clive, I think that the distance between the two leads into the goods yard is a bit longer than you need. Should be about the same as platform length. That means that the single slip can move about 15" leftwards which:

1) Looks more likely to fit in with Jason's template;

2) Keeps the headshunt off the lifting section.

Yes I agree with you on that Joseph, I will start the planning from the Platform end, and work out what I need, i.e. the loop to hold about 15 wagons and then I can see where the Slip and Trailing point will come from there.

 

The Head Shunt has come off the lifting section anyway as that would have caused many problems, it also means I can move Signal No 2 off the lifting section as well.

Bodge.

[Jason T]

I personally don't think you need the headshunt as I don't think it was one in real life, I imagine it was more of a catch point for the yard. Kirkby Stephen is the same, where the level of traffic on the line allows for the main lines to be used for shunting with a bit of getting out of the way if needed.

 

As modellers, we tend to add features in (like headshunts) because we both expect to see them whereas if the real railway didn't see the need, then there basically was no need.

 

Saw an interesting photo the other day on the S&C (can't remember where I saw it or of which station) where a 9F and it's freight had been backed over the crossover and onto the other running line to allow a DMU to pass, and this was apparently quite common at whatever location it was. Do that at an exhibition and there would be that much flapping of arms from most punters that the resultant downpour of dandruff would create an instant winter scene on your layout

[Andrew P]

I personally don't think you need the headshunt as I don't think it was one in real life, I imagine it was more of a catch point for the yard. Kirkby Stephen is the same, where the level of traffic on the line allows for the main lines to be used for shunting with a bit of getting out of the way if needed.

 

As modellers, we tend to add features in (like headshunts) because we both expect to see them whereas if the real railway didn't see the need, then there basically was no need.

 

Saw an interesting photo the other day on the S&C (can't remember where I saw it or of which station) where a 9F and it's freight had been backed over the crossover and onto the other running line to allow a DMU to pass, and this was apparently quite common at whatever location it was. Do that at an exhibition and there would be that much flapping of arms from most punters that the resultant downpour of dandruff would create an instant winter scene on your layout

Morning Jason, you make a good point, on the Plan its no longer than the end of the UP point, so maybe just room for a Brake Van whilst Shunting is taking place, I wont be modelling a full siding now, that's for sure.

 

I do like the idea of backing a freight in whilst a Passenger goes through on the Up, and that's one reason I was originally going to add an Up Loop for that very reason, but when I saw I could almost model a Prototype I left it out, and I think now quite wisely as I would have been Hung Drawn and Quartered by now, hahha

 

Hope you enjoy the EM show mate, pity I cant get there to have a play on BCB again.

 

Bodge

Edited September 9, 2014 by Andrew P

[The Stationmaster]

I personally don't think you need the headshunt as I don't think it was one in real life, I imagine it was more of a catch point for the yard. Kirkby Stephen is the same, where the level of traffic on the line allows for the main lines to be used for shunting with a bit of getting out of the way if needed.

 

As modellers, we tend to add features in (like headshunts) because we both expect to see them whereas if the real railway didn't see the need, then there basically was no need.

 

Saw an interesting photo the other day on the S&C (can't remember where I saw it or of which station) where a 9F and it's freight had been backed over the crossover and onto the other running line to allow a DMU to pass, and this was apparently quite common at whatever location it was. Do that at an exhibition and there would be that much flapping of arms from most punters that the resultant downpour of dandruff would create an instant winter scene on your layout

I suspect the 'headshunt' (if such it was) was there to allow an Up freight trip to do its work in the yard clear of any passing trains as it would, obviously, have blocked both through lines if it had done all its shunting off the Up.

 

In practice, perhaps as traffic levels decreased or if the amount of time taken to shunt the yard wasn't too long, the amount of use it got also shrank, assuming it had ever been used that way.  As far as the model is concerned you have exactly the same situation - you can either shunt between passing trains - as the prototype no doubt did or you have a longer headshunt and shut-in your freight trip to do its shunting while at the same time other trains can pass.  If - as is now the case - constructional considerations shorten the headshunt you simply do that job between passing trains in a suitable gap in the passenger service JLTRT.

[buffalo]

I personally don't think you need the headshunt as I don't think it was one in real life...

 

Look at Clive's map and take a few measurements. You'll find the length of the spur is far longer than might be needed if the point was there solely to act as a trap on the goods loop. Next look at the point leading to the sidings behind the shed, the two points are almost toe to toe, much closer than the way Andy has drawn them on his plans. I doubt there is enough room for, say, a 4F to pull a couple of wagons out of the back sidings without fouling the main lines unless the spur was used as a headshunt. Fine, if shunting between traffic on the main lines, but shunting would be very restricted once an engine was locked into the yard.

 

I suspect the 'headshunt' (if such it was) was there to allow an Up freight trip to do its work in the yard clear of any passing trains as it would, obviously, have blocked both through lines if it had done all its shunting off the Up.

 

Exactly!

 

Nick

[will5210]

Hi, the platform is 420ft long (inc the ramp at the end) according to Google Earth's measuring tool. Not sure if this is any help?

 

Cheers

 

Will

Edited September 9, 2014 by will5210

[67A]

I personally don't think you need the headshunt as I don't think it was one in real life, I imagine it was more of a catch point for the yard. Kirkby Stephen is the same, where the level of traffic on the line allows for the main lines to be used for shunting with a bit of getting out of the way if needed.

 

As modellers, we tend to add features in (like headshunts) because we both expect to see them whereas if the real railway didn't see the need, then there basically was no need.

 

Saw an interesting photo the other day on the S&C (can't remember where I saw it or of which station) where a 9F and it's freight had been backed over the crossover and onto the other running line to allow a DMU to pass, and this was apparently quite common at whatever location it was. Do that at an exhibition and there would be that much flapping of arms from most punters that the resultant downpour of dandruff would create an instant winter scene on your layout

Hi Andy & Jason,

 

Watched the B&R Settle & Carlisle Volume 2 video on Sunday night and that very action was used to move 46229 on the 'Up' Cumbrian Mountain Express whereby 46229 reversed its train onto the 'Down' main and awaited the passage of an 'Up' Peak hauled express before regaining the 'Up' and proceeding. Okay it was no doubt a couple of decades ago but its obviously quite normal.

[Andrew P]

Hi, the platform is 420ft long (inc the ramp at the end) according to Google Earth's measuring tool. Not sure if this is any help?

 

Cheers

 

Will

Graphic1.jpg

Thanks Will, that's a great help, 66 inches, less about 4 each end for the ramp and were down to 58 inches and I did a guess at 54 not including the ramps so were all coming out near enough the same.

 

Will this really is a great help and is much appreciated.

 

Cheers,

Bodge.

[Andrew P]

I suspect the 'headshunt' (if such it was) was there to allow an Up freight trip to do its work in the yard clear of any passing trains as it would, obviously, have blocked both through lines if it had done all its shunting off the Up.

 

In practice, perhaps as traffic levels decreased or if the amount of time taken to shunt the yard wasn't too long, the amount of use it got also shrank, assuming it had ever been used that way.  As far as the model is concerned you have exactly the same situation - you can either shunt between passing trains - as the prototype no doubt did or you have a longer headshunt and shut-in your freight trip to do its shunting while at the same time other trains can pass.  If - as is now the case - constructional considerations shorten the headshunt you simply do that job between passing trains in a suitable gap in the passenger service JLTRT.

Thanks Mike spot on and I will shunt between Passenger and through Freight sevices, as you say JLTRT.

 

Bodge.

 

P.S. I cant believe that this is the 1,000 post and the Shed ain't arrived yet lads,

 

THANK YOU ONE AND ALL.

Edited September 9, 2014 by Andrew P

[Andrew P]

Look at Clive's map and take a few measurements. You'll find the length of the spur is far longer than might be needed if the point was there solely to act as a trap on the goods loop. Next look at the point leading to the sidings behind the shed, the two points are almost toe to toe, much closer than the way Andy has drawn them on his plans. I doubt there is enough room for, say, a 4F to pull a couple of wagons out of the back sidings without fouling the main lines unless the spur was used as a headshunt. Fine, if shunting between traffic on the main lines, but shunting would be very restricted once an engine was locked into the yard.

 

 

Exactly!

 

Nick

Afternoon Nick, re the points, just put that down to really BAD DRAWING on my part, they will be laid Toe to Toe as I did on the carpet plan below.

Rubbish I know but its was all I could do at the time, hahha

 

Bodge

[Andrew P]

Hi Andy & Jason,

 

Watched the B&R Settle & Carlisle Volume 2 video on Sunday night and that very action was used to move 46229 on the 'Up' Cumbrian Mountain Express whereby 46229 reversed its train onto the 'Down' main and awaited the passage of an 'Up' Peak hauled express before regaining the 'Up' and proceeding. Okay it was no doubt a couple of decades ago but its obviously quite normal.

Thanks Mike so that backs up Jason's idea and would look good as a working, will you be doing it on Dent?

 

BTW just switched on just now and thought to myself; Mike must be having his lunch, I have 18 Whatsits in my box, hhahhahahaha

 

Bodge.

[Andrew P]

Just a couple of days now before the Shed arrives, its due Friday Morning all being well.

 

Bodge.