Hawkinsfield Junction

[Andy R]

Andy, looks good. I'm sure that in working any improvements that  suggest themselves could be made and the inevitable snags that arise will be sorted out satisfactorily.

 

The turntable I accept because Peter Denny used one and you have thought it through, but still retain that nagging feeling about the concept

 

Whatever, you now have a plan, enjoy the build and interim running..

 

Hi John - I am interested to hear your doubt honestly- can you give me the benefit of your wisdom on this plan please.

 

regards Andy R

[john flann]

Andy, i have had another look at your plan and my only direct comment is that within the station area the only loop I can see is short. It looks possible to lengthen it and that I would suggest.

 

As I understand it, you want to use Peter Denny's ideas, have seen Tony Gee's recreation of Buckingham (twice), given thought to what was available to you, and made a plan.

 

What else can follow other than you build it?

 

What works, will. What doesn't you can fix.

 

Make a start and enjoy the build. Keeping us members posted, please.

 

I'm pretty sure Peter didn't get there in one go. I doubt if you will either. It's not that I doubt your abilities but what looks good on paper, as in life, doesn't necessarily work in practice.

 

My regards,

Edited June 19, 2017 by john flann

[john flann]

Andy, I've been out, and driving back home I was reminded of an immediate though that had first struck me on seeing your plan but I forgotten about was this:when working the station area I would feel penned in by the staging yard. What's left is triangular and not I suggest a comfortable space.

 

At my Hintock and even more so at Port Bredy I have unimpeded access along and to the whole of the scenic area(s) as well as the staging yards. I can move along readily and loo step back. You don't appear to have that facility.

 

I think PB had more space in his railway room and was able to site his rotating staging yard in the centre of it. Even there I think it must have been a nuisance.

[Andy R]

Andy, I've been out, and driving back home I was reminded of an immediate though that had first struck me on seeing your plan but I forgotten about was this:when working the station area I would feel penned in by the staging yard. What's left is triangular and not I suggest a comfortable space.

 

At my Hintock and even more so at Port Bredy I have unimpeded access along and to the whole of the scenic area(s) as well as the staging yards. I can move along readily and loo step back. You don't appear to have that facility.

 

I think PB had more space in his railway room and was able to site his rotating staging yard in the centre of it. Even there I think it must have been a nuisance.

 

John -as always thanks for your wisdom and honset feedback which I can use to further review the design idea. And, yes Mr D did have more width in his train room than me and so had more operator space- lucky him!

 

regards Andy R

[Andrew P]

Andy, looking at  JF's comments, I've re looked at it, and it's something I tried many moons ago, by the time I'd turned around and knocked it about 10 times in the first week, mine had to go. Remember it will only be on a narrow support and therefore will be very vulnerable.

 

All the best with whatever you decide mate.

Edited June 20, 2017 by Andrew P

[Andy R]

Andy, looking at  JF's comments, I've re looked at it, and it's something I tried many moons ago, by the time I'd turned around and knocked it about 10 times in the first week, mine had to go. Remember it will only be on a narrow support and therefore will be very vulnerable.

 

All the best with whatever you decide mate.

 

Fair enough Andy P. So for me the design issue becomes how to get trains 'back' towards the terminus from some storage facility when I dont have much length or width to do any reasonable gradient space to go under, and no room for a return loop. My aim is to get some reasonable operation without just having trains going round and round, which I have been doing for the last three years -any ideas welcome.

regards Andy R

[Andrew P]

Fair enough Andy P. So for me the design issue becomes how to get trains 'back' towards the terminus from some storage facility when I dont have much length or width to do any reasonable gradient space to go under, and no room for a return loop. My aim is to get some reasonable operation without just having trains going round and round, which I have been doing for the last three years -any ideas welcome.

regards Andy R

I wish I had some ideas for you Andy, it's always a conundrum, and usually one that's not easily solved. On mine I scrapped the whole Layout, but that's not much help to you my friend. 

 

The only other answer is to give it a try, what's the worst that can happen? Maybe your not as clumsy as me, hahah.  

[john flann]

AndyR, we all have to accept at times a quart won't go into a pint pot. Don't forget too PD filled his space and the way he did was because he had it. You don't.

 

So may I suggest and assuming your prime objective is a terminal, you identify the key elements of PD's Buckingham station that you would wish to adopt . It would then be a question of what can be fitted in.

 

Then would follow how best to use the remainder of your space available, and see what can be done with that..

 

It's likely you will finish up with a conventional U shaped layout. What's wrong with that?

 

One further thing, as we get older a walk-in access is preferable-rather than having to crawl beneath a duck under.

 

For some reference my Hintock is basically a L,10'x10' giving space in the middle to move around in.

Edited June 20, 2017 by john flann

[Andrew P]

AndyR, we all have to accept at times a quart won't go into a pint pot. Don't forget too PD filled his space and the way he did was because he had it. You don't.

 

So may I suggest and assuming your prime objective is a terminal, you identify the key elements of PD's Buckingham station that you would wish to adopt . It would then be a question of what can be fitted in.

 

Then would follow how best to use the remainder of your space available, and see what can be done with that..

 

It's likely you will finish up with a conventional U shaped layout. What's wrong with that?

 

One further thing, as we get older a walk-in access is preferable-rather than having to crawl beneath a duck under.

 

For some reference my Hintock is basically a L,10'x10' giving space in the middle to move around in.

Think Berrow Branch, a wonderful example of simplicity and operation in a ''U'' format.

[Andy R]

Andy,

 

Good to hear from you again.

 

I'm pleased to hear you are progressing. The plan sounds good. We both agree on Buckingham!! I am sure going for operation is right. We spend ages building these things and without operational interest I can't see the point.

 

As far as I am aware GWR lever frames were generally numbered left to right, but all the levers needing to be pulled for a train to go through the box left to right tended to be at the far left - so 1 to 4 would be distant, home, starter, advanced starter - and those to be pulled to go right to left would be the furthest on the right - say 30 to 27 for the same signal descriptions going the other way. All things in the middle tended to be left to right numbered, but there were always exceptions. I am sure someone else with more knowledge will be able to correct me, if I've got that wrong.

 

I'll keep a watching brief.

 

Rich

 

Hi Richard- many thanks for your comments back to me on my 'evolving(should that be revolving?)  design ideas. As you will see I have had some further on-line feedback and discussion with two fine modellers -John Flann and Andy P. Both raise vaild points in relation to using the limited space with my central turntable idea. I continue to work on a full sized sketch plan of several options.

 

Your model empire seems to be unfolding nicely from what I can see on your topic thread.

 

regards Andy R

[Dbr1295]

Hi Andy,

 

Good to see you working on Hawkinsfield again.

Just had a chance to catch up with your latest posts, then have a think about them.

The plan itself looks full of potential, but I'm afraid I have to agree with John & Andy P, that the position of that train turntable will cause you grief. I think you won't have enough room to operate the terminus comfortably. Your train room is about the same width as mine, approx. 9 1/2 ft, so I have given a lot of thought about how to maximize that. Unfortunately, my only conclusion so far is that we should have built the room wider!

 

I went back and took a look at your original plan and can think of a couple of ideas (suggestions only, you don't have to take them seriously!)

1) Have Hawkinsfield as the only station on the layout on a double track main line with the storage yard along the opposite side. The branch can terminate in the storage yard so you can operate Hawkinsfield as a junction and marshal up trains for the branch. As the branch station is off scene, it can be imagined to be as big or small as you want, so you could have bigger and more frequent branch trains.

2) Revisit the idea of having the branch climbing to a terminus above the storage yard. The problem would obviously be having to have a steep climb so that the benchwork would clear the trains in the storage yard. You don't have a lot of length for a climb so this may not work, but you could utilize a large draw type arrangement for the storage yards, so that you can get away with minimal clearance above the trains and be able to slide the sidings in & out to handle / make up trains. Somewhere I have a Model Railroader with an article on building something like this. Also I remember that chap over in Cambridge with the automated GWR layout had one.  

 

These are only a couple of thoughts. I'm sure with your ability for careful planning you'll come up with a solution.

 

Cheers, Les

[Andy R]

Hi Andy,

 

Good to see you working on Hawkinsfield again.

Just had a chance to catch up with your latest posts, then have a think about them.

The plan itself looks full of potential, but I'm afraid I have to agree with John & Andy P, that the position of that train turntable will cause you grief. I think you won't have enough room to operate the terminus comfortably. Your train room is about the same width as mine, approx. 9 1/2 ft, so I have given a lot of thought about how to maximize that. Unfortunately, my only conclusion so far is that we should have built the room wider!

 

I went back and took a look at your original plan and can think of a couple of ideas (suggestions only, you don't have to take them seriously!)

1) Have Hawkinsfield as the only station on the layout on a double track main line with the storage yard along the opposite side. The branch can terminate in the storage yard so you can operate Hawkinsfield as a junction and marshal up trains for the branch. As the branch station is off scene, it can be imagined to be as big or small as you want, so you could have bigger and more frequent branch trains.

2) Revisit the idea of having the branch climbing to a terminus above the storage yard. The problem would obviously be having to have a steep climb so that the benchwork would clear the trains in the storage yard. You don't have a lot of length for a climb so this may not work, but you could utilize a large draw type arrangement for the storage yards, so that you can get away with minimal clearance above the trains and be able to slide the sidings in & out to handle / make up trains. Somewhere I have a Model Railroader with an article on building something like this. Also I remember that chap over in Cambridge with the automated GWR layout had one.  

 

These are only a couple of thoughts. I'm sure with your ability for careful planning you'll come up with a solution.

 

Cheers, Les

 

Hi Les- great to hear from you on this winters day. Wet weather has seen me get several good hours in the man-cave installing the point levers for Hawkinsfield Junction that have been kindly made for me by a model engineer firend. Only a couple to go. Once set up they work really well and there is nothing really that can go wrong- other than operator error! I will then paint the facia board and lever mechanisms black, except the brass levers themselves will need to be white so I can see them to operate against the black facia.

 

I have seen the Cambridge layout and its storage yard /draws and they worked fine. A club mate here (Rob) and I were talking through the various ideas and feedback I have got on my design idea during the week and coincidently the idea of using the sophisticated kitchen draw roller systems now available came up. He has a son who works in a kitchen company and knows the brilliant hardware now around to help us on our model quests! 

 

So, your idea is right on the button and Rob and I will be thinking about this some more, to see whether this hardware could assist with the design ideas in my limited space. Hence, again, thanks Les for your interest and input to my stumbling efforts to move to the next stage of this longggggggggggggg..... project. Also I want to record my thanks to Andy P and John F for their continued help and interest in Hawkinsfield. 

 

Off to the railway room for some more therepy.....!

 

regards Andy R

[Andy R]

Hi from deepest winter in NZ; a week of moxed emotions as NZ brings home the Americas Cup in yachting but looses the second rugby test against the touring Lions tream...

 

Cool, wet day here ans so perfect for doing stuff in the railway room- more testing of storage yard ideas with a full sized 'mock up' of middle peninsula storage yard rotating idea as well as second idea of shifting same to parallel with t eproposed terminus. I like to stew on these ideas for a while before comitting to construction- as seen in above posts discussion the jury is still out on these ideas given the experienced modeller feedback I have recieved.

 

In the meantime I ran a few trains with the mock up in place to see how it impeded my movement around the room- and of course it does...as would be expected. I am weighing up how much imposition v's operational potential. I am in no hurry to move on this so just keep looking at ideas with mock up.

 

As some trains were run, on a lazy Saturday afternoon at Hawkinsfield Junction...

 

Photo 1 is a shot from the layout room door showing my rough mock up of the central/middle peninsula idea. Photos 2 and 3 are looking across the junction yard and station area as firstly, a mixed goods trundles through Platform 1 on the main heading east, and secondly a Pannier tank is ready to depart the marshalling yard with a goods heading west.

[Andy R]

Hi from deepest winter in NZ; a week of moxed emotions as NZ brings home the Americas Cup in yachting but looses the second rugby test against the touring Lions tream...

 

Cool, wet day here ans so perfect for doing stuff in the railway room- more testing of storage yard ideas with a full sized 'mock up' of middle peninsula storage yard rotating idea as well as second idea of shifting same to parallel with t eproposed terminus. I like to stew on these ideas for a while before comitting to construction- as seen in above posts discussion the jury is still out on these ideas given the experienced modeller feedback I have recieved.

 

In the meantime I ran a few trains with the mock up in place to see how it impeded my movement around the room- and of course it does...as would be expected. I am weighing up how much imposition v's operational potential. I am in no hurry to move on this so just keep looking at ideas with mock up.

 

As some trains were run, on a lazy Saturday afternoon at Hawkinsfield Junction...

 

Photo 1 is a shot from the layout room door showing my rough mock up of the central/middle peninsula idea. Photos 2 and 3 are looking across the junction yard and station area as firstly, a mixed goods trundles through Platform 1 on the main heading east, and secondly a Pannier tank is ready to depart the marshalling yard with a goods heading west.

 

sorry - photos 1 and 2 mixed up!!!! - 

[Andy R]

Thanks to those members who liked my lazy Saturday photos...we keep plugging along with next steps but need light relief from time to time by running trains.

 

regards Andy R

[john flann]

Running trains is what it's all about Andy.

 

And the better the running and ease of doing so makes it all that the more enjoyable.

 

Whilst my Hintock is being worked on the joy of playing trains (trials) the fun can still be got.

[Andy R]

Thanks to those members who liked my lazy Saturday photos...we keep plugging along with next steps but need light relief from time to time by running trains.

 

regards Andy R

 

And the other option I mentioned which is being 'tested' is the storage yard parallel to the new terminus (compared to earlier photo of the centre peninsula and 

rotating' yard idea) and slightly below and in front of the new terminus - but only a little so that the gradient in and out of such storage yard will be minimal as the curve up to Hawkinsfield Junction will be tight because of the pillar instrusion and the need to make a curved point junction between storage yard road and the continuous run road (if people understand what I am trying to say  -again see earlier layout design idea posted.

Hence the current storage yard which is part of the continuos circuit would be shifted to create the new terminus space, and be in front - it becomes a stud end storage yard but with a small loco turntable only at the end of each storage yard siding to allow locos to be turned around and sent back to the 'head' of a train...at least thats the theory!

With these two options I am now concentrating on getting the best curve radius and curved points (for junction mentioned) combination I get squeeze at the end of the room (looking toward that end in the two photos)

 

I have no idea why one photo is on its side...sorry!

 

regards Andy R

Edited July 3, 2017 by Andy R

[Andrew P]

Would this work Andy?

Edited July 3, 2017 by Andrew P

[Andy R]

Hi Andy P - thanks for this but to be honest I cannot quite work out how it fits with existing junction station?

Can you help further with some notes?

Many thanks and kind regards Andy R

[Andy R]

Hi Andrew P

Thanks for this but to be honest I cannot work out how the existing junction station fits?

Can you elaborate further with notes?

Kind regards Andy R

[Andrew P]

Hi Andy P - thanks for this but to be honest I cannot quite work out how it fits with existing junction station?

Can you help further with some notes?

Many thanks and kind regards Andy R

 

Hi Andrew P

Thanks for this but to be honest I cannot work out how the existing junction station fits?

Can you elaborate further with notes?

Kind regards Andy R

PM Sent mate, Maybe the lower part marked Fiddle Yard should read Hawkinsfield Junction and set the second Terminus  / Fiddle Yard lower. 

[Andy R]

Back at Hawkinsfield Junction this week and I had cause to take off the proposed road bridge (which I had constructed from foam card and card (see photo below) and which has been sitting on- site waiting to be finished for around 2 years or so. Removing this bridge opened up this end of the junction station and helped me see the mechanical point blades move in the vicinity of the platforms. The bridge was blocking this view, which not fatal, was annoying. 

 

After a few days of pondering this situation I made a decision to leave off this bridge and patch up the 'hole' in the back scenery where the bridge intersected with the station and goods yard access roads. I have now done this and the other photos below show the outcome of blending the existing and new scenic bank, vegetation and backscene. I am happy with the outcome.

 

And the bridge...? I think I can reuse it at the station throat to my new terminus or, as per Mr Denny, as a view block when the tracks head 'off stage' through the backscene. Thats in the future. I now turn my mind to deconstructing my current storage yard and its DCC bus and rail feeders, and begining the new terminus baseboard. This will be portable in the sense that I can work on it top and bottom without clambering underneath (like I had done when working on the layout before. Bliss!

 

 

 

 

[Sharky]

I think the signalman will be ever grateful of the bridge removal now being able to see what they're doing and where their trains are.

Disregard that, just saw an older post you made about moving the Signal Box to a more Suitable location...  
I'm sure you'll standby your decision to remove it as well.
Opening up the throat will make operating much easier.

 

Edited July 12, 2017 by Sharky

[Andy R]

I think the signalman will be ever grateful of the bridge removal now being able to see what they're doing and where their trains are.

Disregard that, just saw an older post you made about moving the Signal Box to a more Suitable location...  

I'm sure you'll standby your decision to remove it as well.

Opening up the throat will make operating much easier.

 

 

 

Sharky- hey thanks for your response and for taking an interest in my topic. Yes, overall the change feels right and certainly makes it easier to see the points! There are some at the other end of the junction, on the branch exit that will rely on the mechnical setting of the points with my newly installed levers rather than visual reliance, but thats ok, its all part of the fun.

 

Now to dive into reconstruction of the other side....

 

John Flann- as always thanks John for your support.

 

regards Andy R

[Andrew P]

That look so much better Andy, it opens it right up and looks more natural. Well done.