Virney Junction - Scenery ongoing

[lezz01]

Hi Ray

Many years ago when I was a lad of 18 or so I was a member of MKMRS and we built a resonable if heavy model of Verney Junction. The last time I paid a visit to the club it was still up and running when the club was in Bletchley Park. I don't know what happened to it but they might still have it. Even if they don't the older members of the club should be able to help with info. When I was even younger than that we, as a family, used to picnic in the field by the river under the viaduct at Padbury although the railway was closed at that time. Ah happy days where have they gone?

I have always had a soft spot for that line as it ran across the bottom of the fields behind the house I grew up in in Newton Longville I can just about remember the odd kettle running across the bridge at the bottom of Bletchley rd. When we were older we used to use the line as a short cut to Bletchley as it was a straight line and if you walked along the road it had a great big dog leg in it. We would go up the side of the railway and join the line where the brickworks siding joined the line at the bridge on Bletchley Rd and get off again at the viaduct at the back of the TA center and save ourselves around 3/4 of a mile. We never had any problems with the trains as at that time there was only a couple of trains a day and if one did happen along we could be off at one of the two occupation bridges long b4 it got anywhere near us.  

I shall be following this thread with a great deal of intrest as you can see from the above its right down there in my soul. My children and grand children still live in MK and I visit quite often and although they live in the newer bits of MK I still visit friends that still live in Newton.

Regards Lez.Z.

[Ray H]

Les

 

I remember the club at the Park before they like many others were invited to leave - or is that too polite for the way a number of the volunteer groups seem to have been treated? I popped my head around their door once because I was having a long holiday from railway modelling at the time.

 

I didn't move to the area until 1974 but did once manage a ride on an empty DMU from Aylesbury when the units off the Marylebone service were maintained there.

 

I had contact with the club a few years back for another reason so I might contact them again to ask if anyone has any WTTs for the late 50s/early 60s that I could borrow.

 

Thanks for your post and I hope that I can both keep your interest as the thread develops and also achieve what I am setting out to.

[Ray H]

Operation – Main Line Passenger Trains

 

Some passenger trains from Oxford terminated at Bletchley, others continued on to Cambridge.

 

Here again there was an imbalance of passenger workings suggesting an Up ECS working was necessary with nine Up and ten Down trains plus a Down Mail train in the latter days (the mail train would make the imbalance even worse if it comprised solely passenger carrying stock).

 

It is just conceivable from the timings that each train arriving at Cambridge reversed and returned westwards. However, the last arrival of the day then had just six minutes for the loco to (presumably) run round, take water & couple up to the train ready to return if the public timetable times are accurate. Perhaps BR(E) provided one train set as there are two pictures of Eastern Region locos on passenger trains at Oxford in Bill Simpson’s book that could help to support this theory.

 

My calculations further suggest that a minimum of three other trains sets were required, at least one of which appears to have been based at Oxford. I can’t justify that number nor will I have the (storage) space on the layout for them. Therefore I shall have to limit myself to two.

 

Some later pictures show compartment stock, others corridor stock, both with trains lengths varying between three and four vehicles. A shorter loco on the longer coaches and vice versa may provide me with scope to revisit platform lengths again. DMUs weren't out of the question either latterly and they'd save even more space.

 

One passenger train on each track is now added to my (main fiddle yard) stabling requirements.

[Ray H]

Operation – Clock watching or sequence

 

I should perhaps briefly - as brief as I ever am, that is - refer to how I am hoping to operate the layout.

 

I built up a crude timetable for Wynsloe Road but ran it as a sequence with no reference to time, real or otherwise. As a result and as mentioned earlier I tended to race through the sequence with train that were two hours apart in the timetable running within seconds of each other. No wonder I saw almost constant operation of the traverser as a chore.

 

I don’t like the idea of an actual speeded up clock and wouldn’t know how to go about getting or making one.

 

Therefore, my current thinking is to draw up the timetable in Excel using real time values. I shall then use a function/formula to convert those times into the internal serial number that Excel uses to reference time. I can then perform mathematical modifications – e.g. dividing the number (time) by 12 – before converting the serial number back into hours & minutes that in the example quoted would see the timetable for the whole day fulfilled in just two real hours.

 

That’s the theory at least!

 

I can adjust the conversion function/formula as required so that if I find that I can’t complete the timetable within two hours I can change the value 12 above for something less e.g. 10 and try again, taking a little longer to run through the timetable.

 

Run times between stations on the branch (for example) would then probably relate to the actual time it takes to travel the few feet involved rather than having to crawl around in real time to avoid running early.

 

All I need is one (or two) battery operated clocks that I initially set to midnight and start running. I simply remove the battery when I decide to stop running and re-insert it when I resume, possibly after an initial few minutes endeavouring to remember were I’d got to previously.

 

It shouldn’t be too difficult to fit the clocks with an external switch to avoid the need to keep removing the battery every time the clock has to be stopped. I don’t even have to worry about changes between BST and GMT!

 

At the end of the timetable day I either reset the clock(s) or print off another version of the timetable with the times in it increased by however long it takes to run through the schedule. Ultimately I’ll have a number of (time) different versions and then won’t need to print any more.

 

It would also be possible to vary the time adjustment to allow people unfamiliar with the layout to have longer to work through it.

 

It'll be a little while before I reach the stage where I can test the above theory!

[The Stationmaster]

Don't forget Ray that shunting - even knocking off or attaching a section for freight - can take almost as much time on a model as it did in the real world.  thus you might perhaps need to work to differeent sorts of time for certain tasks and that would affect other movement in that time band (but not in other time bands).

[Ray H]

That's something I hadn't considered.

 

Thanks.

 

I shall have to build some slack into the timetable for that. It is very much a concept at the moment and designed to slow general operations down a bit.

[Andrew P]

Ray, if you had a clock you could stop whilst shunting would that help?

[Ray H]

Now there's an idea and so much easier if there was an external switch to disable the battery for the duration. Definitely an analogue clock though!

 

Thanks for that.

 

I promise I won't make fun of your layout for at least another - - - damn it, the clock's stopped!

[Ray H]

Operation – Freight working part 1

 

I started another thread to gain a more detailed insight into the working of freight trains. I am indebted to the contributors thereto for the information so freely given.

 

I have an increasingly varied collection of freight rolling stock but I also have several of the same kind of vehicle. For example I have enough mineral wagons to make up a coal train and the same applies to Presflos. It is my intention to try to run at least a couple of block trains using collections such as this and I'm currently thinking that I need to allow fiddle yard storage space for such trains. The loads in the mineral wagons are removable so I can use the same train at least twice (if I can steel myself to load/unload as required)! I can treat the Presflos the same way but without the requirement to load/unload in model form!

 

I have a lesser number of cattle and coke wagons because Banbury had a very busy livestock market alongside the LNWR station and a gas works. Both will provide additional traffic for the branch. The coke may run direct onto the branch at the junction. However, although it would possibly be more direct to run the cattle trains from the west via the GWR route to Banbury the close proximity of the market to the LNWR station in Merton Street probably meant that most livestock used the branch.

 

This will provide me with an opportunity to change locos and brakevans at the junction and reference to the track plan shown earlier will demonstrate the challenge that this may present to the unwary! This could result in my first ever purchase of a GWR loco (or I might just use a diesel or BR standard to save the embarrassment!).

 

The composition of other freight trains will be individual wagon (or groups of wagons) based and I am currently endeavouring to develop a way of handling this.

 

In the meantime I shall add a requirement for one fiddle yard siding in each direction to accommodate the "main line" block trains and a further siding in the main fiddle yard and one in the branch fiddle yard for the coke & cattle trains.

 

Technically not a freight train but one that I do intend to run (as a block) and already have stock for is a parcels train. Again, one siding needs to be allocated in the main fiddle yard for that.

[Ray H]

Operation – Freight working part 2

 

My thread on prototypical freight train working yielded enough information to enable me to try my hand at sketching out an idea for realistically moving model wagons around. The thread describing my idea is entitled Model Freight Train Operation. My intentions for moving the wagons around on the new layout will depend on whether anyone spots errors in my scheme that defy resolution. I shall have to wait and see.

 

My freight movement planning has lead me to look at increasing the scope for shunting at the junction and on the branch. Otherwise I fear I shall end up with nothing more than trains tail chasing around the main line overlaid with a number of branch passenger trains and a return trip working once a day that may do little more than drop an odd wagon off at one place.

 

For the time being and when other things permit I shall pay another visit to the track plan now that I'm reasonably happy that I might yet get a model that has enough operational interest for me to stick with and look to take even further than Wynsloe Road.

 

It won't be a rush job and the physical work could still be a few months off.

[Ray H]

A bit more playing with AnyRail.

I've relented and curved the up end of the platform at 72 inch radius. The platform is 48 inches long. The down side is that the back edge of the platform at curved end is just over 2 feet from the wall - you'll see the rectangular block against the wall at the top - that's part of an immobile brick pillar which I have to work around and is partly why the track is angled along that wall of the garage.

I've managed to keep Padbury (to give more shunting opportunities) but the siding and platform have been moved to the outside of the curve to facilitate the use of a larger radius point for the siding. The curve through the platform is 36 inch radius so the gap between track and the short platform hopefully won't look too bad.

The branch curve will also necessitate boards wider than 24 inches.

I've now moved the backscene forward along the right hand side of the garage - the bottom of the plan - so that there is a twenty inch space behind for the main fiddle yard. This means it is a squeeze to accommodate Buckingham with the prototypical sidings on opposite sides and ends of the station. The end of the siding nearest the central operating well is 33 inches from the wall. That's really pushing things if I want to be able to get to the fiddle yard to re-form trains.

I'm wondering whether to move both sidings to the Padbury end of the station with access to both off the Up platform. I could then investigate having a low relief station against the backscene.

I do have aspirations towards hinging the backscene so that it folds forward over the station to facilitate easier access to the fiddle yard tracks. However, I'm really struggling to convince myself that I can comfortably reach the fiddle yard tracks nearest the wall even with the backscene folded.

Alas I'm starting to think that even with 17 feet by 8 feet I can't do what I want and guess I may have to start looking at other ideas.

[Ray H]

I was becoming increasingly less enthusiastic the more I looked at the latest version of Virney Road. I'd added the start of the Buckingham branch to increase the scope for shunting but that was at the expense of hiding about 50% of the min line/double track area.

 

I had already had to compromise by curving the end of the platform and then adding even a small freight yard as I was contemplating would significantly increase the distance between the prototype and the layout.

 

The rear garage door couldn't be opened other than by a minimum amount when the layout was in use, another downside because I couldn't leave locos circulating/running-in unless I stayed in the garage whilst they were doing so.

 

The design was also limiting the scope for including an workbench space.

 

It was time to take stock and think again.

 

The above plan is a glorified U shape. The design so far shows twelve fiddle yard sidings, each a minimum of 54" long and most significantly more than that. It incorporates a continuous run (mainly for testing), albeit single track, and nothing less than 36" radius curves. It lacks the design for the two termini at present.

 

The flat crossing to the right is in fact a single slip which allows trains to tail chase if required. The initial thinking was for a station at the top of the plan (below the fiddle yard). Trains could either run from that station direct to the lower fiddle yard or complete a few circuits before doing so or run to the terminus at the bottom (above the lower fiddle yard).

 

The top fiddle yard comprises fixed sidings whilst the bottom fiddle yard is a removable/exchangeable cradle with four sidings that could be turned through 180º if required. Some main line (or through) trains may simply run between the two fiddle yards making a single pass around the "circle".

 

The jury is out on several aspects of the idea at present. One is whether to add a reverse curve at top left of the "circle" so that trains can leave and then return to the top station. This would also allow trains to leave the top station and run to the top fiddle yard.

 

Another area of thought is to have one station that majors on passenger facilities and the other that does likewise for freight (or is just a freight yard).

 

I am a little worried whether I can disguise the "circle" enough so that it doesn't look too much like a train set.

 

I could put the workbench on the rear wall (on the left in the plan), between the door and the "top" station - that's top as in top of the drawing. At present the idea is for a single level but that isn't cast in stone.

 

Comments on the concept would be welcome.

[The Stationmaster]

To be honest Ray I preferred Virney Jcn the way it was emerging although to be honest that does reflect my aged preference for a roundy approach to life nowadays (alas also including my waistline). 

 

But I think it needs some very basic thought about what you want from a railway and what you can achieve plus - as you are doing - how it will operate.  Terminus to fiddle yard/terminus means either double-handed operation or a lot of chasing to & fro unless you set up your fiddle yard(s) following the US approach of using theme as a feeder and set them out before you start running and don't touch them again until you finish - seems to work well for an infrequent freight operation, not so good for British style passenger train operation I suspect.

 

My last 'large' layout - a long time ago - worked basically as a terminus to return loop layout (the return loops could hold 6 trains but not easy to vary their order of course) but even then I was looking towards turning to a through based layout on a roundy basis because I could perceive operational advantages when running it on my own.

 

Clearly I can't design your railway because our layout aims are, or should be, individual expressions of what we want to create.  But I do think it needs a lot of very careful thought about what we want to see and how we would be able to operate it, including just walking into the room and running a couple of trains for a bit of relaxation.

[Ray H]

Thanks Mike

 

I think that was possibly something I needed to be told. The change of direction in the last plan seemed alright in my head but didn't look so good on paper.

 

What you've said woke me up to the fact that my original idea wasn't necessarily at fault and to realise that there was less reason to be a slave to the original the minute I accepted that I wasn't going to mimic the original in its entirety.

 

After all, there's no reason why I can't build a "what might have been" style layout incorporating those bits of the original that fit in.

 

I've already got an idea for ensuring Buckingham will fit in the available space and Padbury is there for the tweaking. I now need to give some time to developing a junction station layout that will enhance the operational capabilities and challenges of the layout.

 

Thanks again.

[Andrew P]

Hi Ray, just had a catch up and looking at the changes you were proposing, I'm inclined to very much agree with Mike, (The Stationmaster) he has hit the nail on the head on many points.

 

I would certainly re look at the original plan.

 

All the best.

[Ray H]

Spurred by Mike's comments above I'm slowly coming to realise that although (and with no disrespect to either Mike or Andy for their respective Dent & Bitton threads) nice long main line runs look nice, they're not necessarily what will give me satisfaction from a layout as they're not hands on enough for me. I'm sure that I'd soon tire of sitting and watching trains go by as much as I recognise that for great chunks of the operational railway that is more or less what happened all day and every day.

So I've gone back to the drawing board again and concentrated initially on what I can incorporate on the branch. I have arrived at the above which is limited by the number of track parts in the version of AnyRail that I'm using.

Fiddle Yard

I drew the fiddle yard in for completeness for without it I wouldn't know how much depth I had for Buckingham station.

I've only shown three tracks in each direction in the fiddle yard although the white space on the fiddle yard side of the backscene is enough for a further track in each direction. The shortest sidings are 6ft long, the longest just shy of 9ft.

I can probably add another foot to these lengths by accepting 2ft 6" radius curves instead of the 3ft shown on the hidden sections. That should be enough to allow two trains per siding. There's also room for one or two trains on the branch fiddle yard sector plate. The diagram doesn't show the trailing crossovers at each end of the main fiddle yard that will allow trains to reverse on all the fiddle yard sidings. However, their inclusion will be more difficult with the tighter running line radius.

Buckingham

The sidings were trailing in the relevant direction on leaving the actual station, something I don't have room for, hence what I've shown.

The siding only just fit. I don't think I can do much else other than have a (low relief) building against the backscene adjacent to the siding at the Banbury end of the station if I want an excuse to shunt wagons in and out of that siding.

There's enough space for a little more development at the other end of the station and that could be improved a little more by dropping the (branch) running line radius down from 36 to 33 inches and also by adding a small triangular fillet where the baseboards join.

A very gentle curve through the station with corresponding curved baseboard facia may be more pleasing than the more usual straight edge and may also open up a few more possibilities at the Padbury end of the station. It would also help to widen the access space by the garage door which is currently shown as just 15 inches.

There's clearly (a lot) more to do in this area but comments would be appreciated on my thoughts so far. I'll look at the rest of the layout later.

[The Stationmaster]

Ray,

 

Looking good so far.  I think one thing we all have to realise is that if we model relatively small stations, even a small junction as in your case, what we are producing might have limited 'operational interest'.

 

However I think it is then worth considering what you regard as 'operational interest' and, again, thinking about what you can actually do is terms of working your little railway empire either alone or with visiting friends.  In reality 'operating interest' seems to boil down (for many folk) to shunting while for some it is 'watching the trains go by'.  Both of these have their advantages and either, or both, can be worked relatively prototypically although ;shunting' will always be constrained and shaped by the type of couplings you employ.   But then the next step is - I think - 'shunting properly' which although not entirely possible in model form (e.g. no loose shunting) does come with the advantage of having some meaning to it instead of aimlessly moving wagons around for the fun of it.  You of course are as near as a gnat's whatsit to creating a system which allows you to 'shunt with thought' - i.e. you will have created operational interest (and challenges) but you need to decide if that is enough for you.

 

However in making that decision at least your latest 'Buckingham' will allow a bit of 'operational interest as 'shunting with thought' will be present, even with only two sidings.  What you now need to do is think a bit further about how traffic will work at the junction and possible (albeit not exactly Verney) think in terms of freight traffic to, and possibly from - the branch arriving at/leaving the junction in either direction.

[Ray H]

Wise words again Mike for which I thank you.

 

Your Boxing Day comments were timed almost to the minute as I've just become aware of the NCE mini panel and how it might be used for on the layout. It seems to enable me (for example) to press a button to set the 11.45 Oxford to Bletchley to run round the layout whilst I carry on shunting the morning pick-up at Buckingham. This is like a second pair of hands for someone who is often the sole operator of the layout.

 

I believe I could do similar with a computer and may yet look at that option in more detail, especially if it throws in a few b*ggeration factors. However, I'll stick with the hands-on approach for the time being.

 

I also need to instil in my mind that I can simply pop into the garage (or wherever) and run as many or as few trains as I have time for. I've always tended to work on the basis that I need to work it all the way through in one session once I start the sequence.

 

I've a lot of work to do to make the garage usable for the layout. This is giving me time to plan and discuss with RMwebbers what I propose to do which can't be a bad thing.

[Ray H]

A bit more juggling with Buckingham and with the fourth fiddle yard track added on the outer track. I've tried to remove the clinical straight baseboard edges. However, I think there is a little more work to do on this in front of the two sidings to the right of Buckingham station.

I'm still not happy with the Padbury arrangement but I want to try and include the siding if not the platform. One thought that springs to mind is to un-prototypically use one of the new Heljan four wheel railbuses on the branch because I can then limit the platform length and avoid the gap between track and curved platform edge. Presumably I could run a conventional DMU with a short platform as well as I believe that such combinations did exist.

I've reduced the radius of the curves at each end of the fiddle yard. The track shown has a 33" radius, the inner track will be a couple of inches less. I've done this so that the access flap has short straight sections at the extreme rather than continuations of the curve on the flap. I get longer fiddle yard sidings as well. The longest is now 10ft long give or take an inch or so at each end for clearance. The others sidings with the same proviso are 102", 86" & 86" long.

My initial thoughts were to place crossovers on the double track sections at each end of the fiddle yard. However, I don't relish the thought of doing so where the main radius is as low as 33" as the resultant radius of the divergent track could end up at less than two feet.

I need to consider the full worth of such crossovers because the trains either have to be set up facing the wrong way or provision will be needed to allow the locos to run round which scuppers plans for two trains in a siding.

[Brian D]

I'm enjoying reading your thread Ray, the "pause for thought" elements especially.  I can empathise totally.  I'm still firming things up on my plans too as I also want as much operational flexibility as possible.  However, I have already bitten (not bitton hahaha) the bullet about reality - mine will be a totally fictional location, albeit based in a particular area.

Interesting stuff - keep it coming.

Regards,

Brian.

[Ray H]

Many thanks for the comments Brian - BTW I think we shared the same employer prior to our respective retirements but I was based in the Ivory Tower for 40+ years.

 

 

Here's the latest version using Photoshop to overcome my self imposed limitations of AnyRail i.e. I haven't bought the full version!

 

I've since tweaked the Padbury area even further and managed to move the platform slightly nearer to the junction and have the siding facing the way it faced in real life.

 

My next challenge is to see what I can do with the junction station area.

[Ray H]

The result of this evening's efforts, first with AnyRail and then with Photoshop to try and put it all together and show where I am stumbling.

I've added a bay platform for the time being to accommodate the branch train if I opt to terminate trips at the junction - in reality the trains ran through to Bletchley (although some reversed at Winslow a long time ago).

My concern now is where to put the Goods Yard. Ideally I'd like it on the inside of the layout in case I need to pitch in with the big hand from the sky during shunting. However, that then complicates the signalling because the yard access will be across the single line. Furthermore my intention is that the branch will descend as it leaves the junction station so that it is lower than the main fiddle yard at Buckingham to make access to the fiddle yard slightly easier. A change in the branch track level would further complicate the placement of the Goods Yard on the inside of the curves.

I don't want to reduce the radius of the curve off the branch any further so that needs to stay as it is until it is parallel with the top edge of the plan - this is the far wall of the garage. Other than that I'm open to ideas (please).

[The Stationmaster]

A simple answer might be to access the goods yard off the branch or altreernatively to put in a slip connection where the trailing connection from the branch joins the mainline.  Neither of these will necessarily solve your situation with levels but depending on where your yard connection is and how you arrange it you could have a very simple yard layout.

 

My intentions (better to say that than 'plan' as it only exists in a couple of sketches) is simply to have two sidings in the goods yard which will be at a lower level than the passenger station as it will be 'inside' it in just the situation you have, I won't have a  goods shed as it would steal too much space and have an overbearing visual impact but I might consider a small lock-up on a load bank  as was at Uffington.

[Ray H]

How would accessing the yard off the branch work prototypically Mike?

 

Does that mean the single line would start some distance from the box?

 

The orientation of the platforms is a remnant of when I was trying to emulate the real location. They were arranged that way so that the Met platform and loop tracks could be included. That's no longer a restriction although I would like to incorporate a lay-by siding on that side of the track if I can.

 

I should have added earlier for those who may think otherwise that the red rectangle top centre is a brick pillar that is part of the garage infrastructure.

[The Stationmaster]

Accessing off the branch could be done very simply by using what, in effect, amounts to a crossover with one end being the connection in the branch while the other forms the protecting trap - you then have a choice - it either trains for a train heading towards Buckingham (i.e. the branch train shunts the junction's goods yard) or it trails for a train leaving the branch where it can be shunted either by a train leaving the branch or from the mainline.

 

The second option - which might not suit your topography for the branch gradient  - could also be more readily provided by providing the single slip connection I mentioned within the connection which leads off the branch onto the mainline.  This would obviously be more compact than a separate crossover thus allowing longer yard sidings but would mean the branch would then fall into a cutting between the goods yard and the mainline.  Apart from that potential problem you would be introducing more complex pointwork (the single slip) in a rural location where there tended to be more space which enabled such things to be avoided however plenty of wayside stations boasted single slips for yard connections so it would be wrong.

 

I think you should do whatever will fit and look good to provided lie-by (lay-by, refuge, or any other name) sidings as it will greatly increase your potential options for freight working and attaching wgons to/detaching them from passing freights to connect with the branch trip.  But it does depend how 'crowded' you are prepared to accept the scene becoming together with the effect of various radii on curved track.