Virney Junction - Scenery ongoing

[Ray H]

Lest anyone should think that it is all planning an not a lot else - my printer will verify otherwise as the above image shows. I've added a few items of rolling stock just to give an idea of size. Ignore the green piece of paper in the plan. I tend to re-use paper already printed on one side that would otherwise have been thrown out or re-cycled and I'm nearly reaching the end of the paper that I saved from this fate when I was still working full time.

The backscene behind the branch station will be immediately to the left of the siding track seen with the suburban coaches on. The freight stock is standing in the down platform at Buckinhum in the picture above.

It is just possible to detect how close to the edge of a 2ft deep baseboard the station will come - the plywood protruding from under the paper is artificially forward because of the gas pipe. The edge of the paper is 2ft from the garage wall. I need to allow an absolute minimum of 24mm between any fixed structure on the platform and the platform edge. I doubt I can have a (main) station building much less than about 18ft deep and I ought to have at least some road space between the front of the building and the edge of the baseboard. I can move everything about ½ inch closer to the garage wall without fouling the gas pipe. I therefore need to widen the baseboard by about 5 inches (125mm) at the centre of the platform (which is on a slight curve).

In fact the reason for printing out the track plan in full was to try and assess where the baseboard edge will be.
 

The second image gives an overall view of the fiddle yard and the station area. The milk factory will be between the backscene and the siding where the tank wagon and van are standing. The branch fiddle yard's sector plate tracks are nearest to the camera although the ends of the tracks nearest the station will need splaying slightly and won't be parallel like they are in the picture.
 

The third picture shows the down end of the fiddle yard. The two tracks disappearing off the edge of the baseboard at top left are the through tracks. They will lead onto the access flap.

The end of the station's milk yard siding is just visible in the foreground as is the station end of the branch sector plate. Tingewick Road (bridge) crossed the railway north west of the station whereas Bath Lane is much nearer to the station and was crossed by the railway. The equivalent of Bath Lane will form the scenic break on the layout and for this reason will pass over the railway!

[Ray H]

Higher or Lower (or neither)?

 

I am mindful that a number of modellers have concerns about incorporating gradients into their layouts. Nonetheless I can’t help but think that the size of the garage provides me with the opportunity to vary the baseboard level even if by only a relatively small amount.

 

I can show a more definite separation between the branch and main line in the vicinity of Padbry station – where the two are only about 6 inches apart horizontally – by varying the height of one or both. This will allow me to increase the length of the main line that traverses the scenic area. Otherwise I feel that the main line should disappear from view before the branch reaches Padbry station because the visual separation wouldn’t be so great if the ground level was the same in both foreground and background.

 

Furthermore, a difference in baseboard level between the main fiddle yard and Buckinhum station in front of it could create either of two benefits. A lower branch level would serve to make it easier to lean over the layout to reach the fiddle yard should the need arise whereas a higher branch would help disguise the existence of the fiddle yard behind it.

 

I’m not talking about gradients that would put the Lickey incline to shame, just a couple of inches overall with a gradient easier than 1 in 50. I’m not even certain that that kind of difference (I’m thinking about 25mm at Padbry and double that at Buckinhum) would be that noticeable and actually worth considering.

 

Lowering the branch will deny me the ability to use up my stock of Cobalt point motors on the branch as these need nearly 4” of depth under the baseboard and I’m loathe to increase the depth of the baseboard on the rest of the layout to 6” just so that I can achieve the 4” depth on the branch. The alternative is to use servos, an option that I haven’t entirely ruled out.

 

Raising the branch is probably the least preferred option although it will probably make it easier to disguise the disappearance of the main line from view. However, the fiddle yard tracks have been intentionally kept close together to maximise the storage space. This will make access to each track difficult - but a difficulty that I'm prepared to tolerate. I wonder if having to reach down to the tracks (over the Buckinhum backscene) will make an already difficult situation into an almost impossible one?

 

I have considered raising the level of the main line slightly behind Padbry and then dropping it back down before it reaches the fiddle yard and lowering and raising the branch by a similar amount. (I've just realised that that is what actually happened on the branch).

 

This will produce a height difference between the two at Padbry itself but leave Buckinhum and the fiddle yard behind at the same level. This might be an option worthy of further investigation especially as I’m considering having an open top baseboard at that end of the garage so both track beds will be independent of each other in the area.

[Andrew P]

Andy

 

Have you come to any conclusion about your freight movements yet?

Yes the Skip at the end of the Drive, hahahhah No not fully but getting there thanks, just going to read the rest of yours and I'll be back to comment.

[Andrew P]

Hi again Ray, it all reads out superb mate, for lowering the baseboard, why not have a look at the Traintroniscs TT300 Point Motors, about an inch and a bit deep and DCC Chip fitted for about £22.50 each.

 

http://www.traintronics.co.uk/products/dcc-for-model-railways/slow-motion-motor-driven-point-motor-dcc--analogue/10-57

 

All the best mate and I love your planning.

[Ray H]

Thanks Andy. I've just read through the manual for the TT300. They certainly seem to have covered most if not all eventualities. The dimensions given suggest that the motor is 42mm deep and requires a 5mm deep spacer between the motor and the underside of the baseboard.

 

All of the wiring connections to the motor are just below the baseboard so I would hope the motors (and their wiring) wouldn't be too prone to the risk of damage even if the bottom of the motor is only a few millimetres above the base of the baseboard framing.

 

The bad news is that this has just made me count up the number of points on the layout. It's 40! I was tempted to consider TT300s for all the points having read the manual. Maybe that's not such a (financially) good idea after all with that number of turnouts.

 

I'm being drawn to adding track occupancy detectors (especially in the fiddle yard area). There'll be 36 of those (if I extend that idea to the whole layout) at the first count allowing for two circuits on the longer fiddle yard sidings. Throw in another 80 route indicator LEDs dotted all around the layout. That's a lot of points to build and one h*ll of a lot of wiring especially if I opt for DC style control of the points and you'll notice that I haven't even mentioned signals yet or inter-baseboard wiring connectors!

 

I was contemplating a single control panel for the whole layout. However with figures like that now coming to light I think I'll have to have two or three just to cut down on the lengths of individual circuit wires that will have to be found a home under the baseboards! This could certainly be a case of being grateful that DCC accessory decoders can work off a single pair of wires rather than each motor or signal needing their own dedicated pair.

[Ray H]

I think that an over-length after (Sunday) lunch doze stirred me into action after several days of being unable to motivate myself to move forward with the layout.

 

I headed for the garage and spent parts of the afternoon and the evening assessing what is required by way of actual baseboard framing to accommodate the two levels that I am hoping to have on the fiddle yard/branch station boards.

 

I thought I had it all worked out when I started to write this post but have just realised that what was my current idea has no continuous support along the length of the baseboard where the height changes.

 

As much as I would like to have two levels I am now beginning to wonder whether I'm biting off more than I can chew and whether I ought to stick with a single level. It would certainly make baseboard construction much simpler and be much more economical on timber.

 

My difficulties are made worse because I intend to have a curved front edge for much of the baseboard (and a curved backscene between branch station and fiddle yard so the framing already has the potential for having weak spots. Perhaps I should just satisfy myself with sections of open top baseboards and effectively have the line on what looks like raised ground in places.

 

I'll have another look tomorrow morning and may make a decision then.

[Ray H]

The baseboard frames for the fiddle yard were finally completed a couple of days before we jetted off to foreign parts for a floating holiday in the middle of April. Alas nothing further has been done since then save for modifying the track plan for the station slightly to incorporate the old loop track that was adjacent to the track through the Met platform as shown below.

 

The additional track (and associated point) are the topmost in the diagram.

 

This has resulted in lengthening the Met platform track slightly as it wouldn't make sense to only include half the platform track if the loop is added.

 

A by-product is that there will now be considerably more siding space on the down side to hold wagons being exchanged between the "main" and the branch in that direction.

 

I’ve also been considering the question of levels again following a visit from a friend.

 

The above mentioned baseboard frames are deep enough to accommodate Cobalt analogue point motors, of which I have a dozen or so in stock. With no surface – 9mm ply? – added as yet I still have the option to fit spacers where appropriate atop the framework to lift the branch track above the track level of the fiddle yard. This would help hide the fiddle yard at the (great?) expense of making access to the fiddle yard tracks more awkward.

 

There is a minimum of 120 inches of plain line between the extremities of the single line (excluding through Padbry station which will remain on the level) so a 1:60 gradient would lift the branch two inches. Fortunately the intention to have an open top baseboard along the branch means that I don’t have to make the decision just yet. I can cut the track bed to shape and fix it to the framework and temporarily remove it later to add spacers if I opt for a level change.

[Ray H]

I was in the garage earlier in the weekend and proved the oft used saying relative to me that I’d be dangerous if I had a brain!

 

I’ve been trying to use up oddments of timber that I have lying around because it frees up space in the garage and also keeps the expenditure down. I’ve found enough 18mm thick plywood to use for the outside frames of the baseboards and I’ve managed to source a free (to me) supply of narrower 15mm plywood strips to use for the baseboard’s internal bracing.

 

The track plan requires that I either have baseboards widths of over 2ft as standard to accommodate the few wider areas or I only widen the boards where I need to and have nicely curved front edges to the baseboards. I’ve chosen the latter.

 

This means that the visible 18mm thick, 100mm deep outer baseboard framing comprises several short lengths for each board with each length screwed to the shallower 15mm thick transverse bracing.

 

Unfortunately I overlooked the fact that the baseboard supports are only 2ft deep front to back. This leaves the front edge of the actual baseboards unsupported. This wouldn’t be a problem if the 15mm bracing was 100mm deep but at just 25mm the 15mm plywood provides no strength to the outer framing of the baseboard.

 

It wasn’t until I started to move the various woodworking machines around so that I could start building the baseboards for the other side of the garage that I noticed just how badly one of the fiddle yard baseboards had sagged because of this.

 

I initially managed to reinforce one of the battens with a filler piece of 18mm plywood with screws into the two 18mm thick, 100mm deep plywood as well as screws through the thickness of the 15mm bracing plywood above. This method seemed to work on the first board but was a dismal failure even after adding more screws than there was wood to screw them into!

 

I eventually solved the problem by screwing a piece 18mm plywood to the lower edge of the 15mm bracing plywood where the baseboard sits on the supporting woodwork and this making the depth up to the 100mm of the outside baseboard frame.

 

Fortunately all but one of the baseboards on the other side of the garage will be limited to being 2ft deep so the extra support shouldn’t be required.

[Andrew P]

Dangerous, No Ray, not at all, you even SOUND like you know what your talking about, which is a lot more than I do where wood is concerned, good job I have Lee to sort me out.
 
I'm looking forward to seeing how the Gradient works out.

Edited May 4, 2015 by Andrew P

[Ray H]

I was able to turn my attention to clearing the decks where the main station baseboards will be having (hopefully) resolved the sagging baseboard problem on the right hand side of the garage.

 

This entailed a trip to the tip to get rid of numerous small offcuts of wood (and plywood) and then relocating a number of other things including all the woodworking machines.

 

I then printed off the Templot plans for the station area, stuck everything together and laid it out on the top of the cupboards upon which the baseboards will rest on.

 

The loco and three coaches are standing where the down platform track will be. The two tank wagons are in the loop adjacent to the old Met & GC platform and the dmu in the distance is approaching from Padbry. How do we know that? Well, the down platform is already (re-)occupied so a down branch train would have gotten as far as Padbry by now and be well out of shot!

 

The resemblance to the original stops here for everything else all but falls into the might have been category.

 

This is a closer view of the London end of the station. My goods yard is on the right and the branch track to the left thereof. That branch is liable to be on a slight gradient - probably (and the opposite of the original) climbing towards Buckinhum. The up and down lines are next and finally there's the extension of the Met tracks eventually joining the down line.

 

With only a single trailing crossover on the main lines - see lower left, the left most (Met extension) track plays a vital part in facilitating any run rounds as well as providing the means to recess any slow moving trains to allow something faster to overtake.

[Andrew P]

Wow Ray that's looking really good mate, very nice.

[Ray H]

Thanks Andy.

 

The images in my previous post were taken at the completion of Sunday’s work.

 

I’d visited a colleague’s developing folded figure of eight 0 gauge US railroad loft layout the previous day. That layout features the obligatory bridge over and associated gradients.

 

Guess who is now giving some thoughts to doing something similar?

 

My rough calculations suggest that I would require a more or less continuous 1 in 40 gradient from the end of the station boards around three sides of the garage to reach the fiddle yard relocated below the station - not a million light years different to those on Dent. These figures are based on the upper baseboard frame remaining at 100mm (4") deep and allowing something like a 150mm (6") gap to the track level below that so that I could get to any errant stock in the fiddle yard below should the need arise.

 

I think that the gradient would ease to a more preferred 1 in 50 by reducing the depth of the upper baseboard framing to 50mm - I’ve been working on a 100mm baseboard depth to accommodate Cobalt point motors although I’m now 95% certain that I’ll end up using servos instead.

 

The disadvantages that I see of a change such as this are:

• The introduction of gradients over a much wider area (and probably steeper than were likely on the branch).

• The access flap would have to be wider and incorporate four tracks on opposing gradients rather than two tracks on the level.

 

Train lengths may not be too much of an issue as they’re more likely to be controlled by the length of the fiddle yard sidings and the intention to berth two trains on each siding therein.

 

Advantages appear more numerous.

• There would be a longer run between station and fiddle yard.

• The branch station baseboard could be deeper with improved front edge support.

• Buckinhum’s track layout would be less compressed and a little more distant from Padbry.

• Padbry’s sole siding could possibly be a tad longer.

• The branch curve radius could be eased.

• The majority of the layout’s wiring would be on one side of the garage.

• Fiddle yard sidings could be a little longer.

• The number of fiddle yard sidings could possibly be increased by two.

• The fiddle yard would more likely become the last rather than the first thing visitors see when they enter the garage.

 

I have a few days before I will have time to do too much more either to the baseboards or the plan for it. That should provide an opportunity to think of any other disadvantages of a change of this nature.

 

The track plan for the junction station would remain unaltered unless the change to the branch curves provides room for me to add a couple of inches to the length of the goods yard sidings.

[Andrew P]

Thanks Andy.

 

The images in my previous post were taken at the completion of Sunday’s work.

 

I’d visited a colleague’s developing folded figure of eight 0 gauge US railroad loft layout the previous day. That layout features the obligatory bridge over and associated gradients.

 

Guess who is now giving some thoughts to doing something similar?

 

My rough calculations suggest that I would require a more or less continuous 1 in 40 gradient from the end of the station boards around three sides of the garage to reach the fiddle yard relocated below the station - not a million light years different to those on Dent. These figures are based on the upper baseboard frame remaining at 100mm (4") deep and allowing something like a 150mm (6") gap to the track level below that so that I could get to any errant stock in the fiddle yard below should the need arise.

 

I think that the gradient would ease to a more preferred 1 in 50 by reducing the depth of the upper baseboard framing to 50mm - I’ve been working on a 100mm baseboard depth to accommodate Cobalt point motors although I’m now 95% certain that I’ll end up using servos instead.

 

The disadvantages that I see of a change such as this are:

• The introduction of gradients over a much wider area (and probably steeper than were likely on the branch).

• The access flap would have to be wider and incorporate four tracks on opposing gradients rather than two tracks on the level.

 

Train lengths may not be too much of an issue as they’re more likely to be controlled by the length of the fiddle yard sidings and the intention to berth two trains on each siding therein.

 

Advantages appear more numerous.

• There would be a longer run between station and fiddle yard.

• The branch station baseboard could be deeper with improved front edge support.

• Buckinhum’s track layout would be less compressed and a little more distant from Padbry.

• Padbry’s sole siding could possibly be a tad longer.

• The branch curve radius could be eased.

• The majority of the layout’s wiring would be on one side of the garage.

• Fiddle yard sidings could be a little longer.

• The number of fiddle yard sidings could possibly be increased by two.

• The fiddle yard would more likely become the last rather than the first thing visitors see when they enter the garage.

 

I have a few days before I will have time to do too much more either to the baseboards or the plan for it. That should provide an opportunity to think of any other disadvantages of a change of this nature.

 

The track plan for the junction station would remain unaltered unless the change to the branch curves provides room for me to add a couple of inches to the length of the goods yard sidings.

Hi Ray, I did a looped 8 such as you describe once in a Garage and as I said to Neil,(Class 66) and Aeroken1 in New Layout under construction, maybe I should have considered that instead of Bitton.

 

All the best with whichever way you decide to go.

[Ray H]

I wish I could stop dreaming up all these ideas as it wrecks the sleep pattern. Gradients and thoughts of a possible (unrelated) holiday seem to have been crawling around my head all night hence the relatively early post - and I've been up and about for over an hour already (and awake for a lot, lot longer)!

 

I did notice your comment in the other thread Andy but hadn't related it to the figure of eight design.

 

It is just possible to detect the shadows cast by the cupboards above the junction station area in the uppermost of my two most recent images. (From memory) I'm limited to about fifteen inches between the top of the floor mounted cupboards and the underside of the cupboards above - it's too early to venture in the garage to check the exact measurement. (Taking the cupboards down isn't a complete non-starter)! That leaves precious little space above the upper baseboard surface for scenery although the available space will be further influenced by the depth of the two baseboards and the clearance between them.

 

The existing fiddle yard Buckinhum station baseboard frames - which admittedly haven't cost me anything more than the screws to hold it altogether - are 100mm deep. They're the wrong shape to be retained for the fiddle yard alone so could only see possible use for the branch station. The branch baseboards themselves will need to be about 4ft off the floor with the junction station floating in the clouds relatively speaking. That's not an ideal height for working on.

 

Another problem that is taxing my mind at present is how to support the upper level (station) and yet retain the ability to remove a lower level (fiddle yard) baseboard as I think it very unlikely that the positioning of points on the two levels will coincide so the baseboards are liable to be different sizes.

 

I've never had any success at hanging things off walls and suspect that a 2ft deep baseboard cantilevered out from the wall is liable to show a distinct droop at the front edge. I certainly wouldn't trust myself not to lean on that front edge from time to time without thinking.

 

Turning the layout through 180º puts the down end of the station (and fiddle yard below) adjacent to the only garage door that I plan to use. Shortening the layout to avoid the door opening will shorten rather than lengthen the fiddle yard and complicate the design of the access flap significantly.

 

And there's still two hours until breakfast!

[Andrew P]

Hi Ray, no mine wasn't a Figure of 8, just a Looped 8 around the walls as per the other thread. it can be very effective for really good scenic and long runs.

[The Stationmaster]

I wish I could stop dreaming up all these ideas as it wrecks the sleep pattern. Gradients and thoughts of a possible (unrelated) holiday seem to have been crawling around my head all night hence the relatively early post - and I've been up and about for over an hour already (and awake for a lot, lot longer)!

 

I did notice your comment in the other thread Andy but hadn't related it to the figure of eight design.

 

It is just possible to detect the shadows cast by the cupboards above the junction station area in the uppermost of my two most recent images. (From memory) I'm limited to about fifteen inches between the top of the floor mounted cupboards and the underside of the cupboards above - it's too early to venture in the garage to check the exact measurement. (Taking the cupboards down isn't a complete non-starter)! That leaves precious little space above the upper baseboard surface for scenery although the available space will be further influenced by the depth of the two baseboards and the clearance between them.

 

The existing fiddle yard ###### Buckinhum station baseboard frames - which admittedly haven't cost me anything more than the screws to hold it altogether - are 100mm deep. They're the wrong shape to be retained for the fiddle yard alone so could only see possible use for the branch station. The branch baseboards themselves will need to be about 4ft off the floor with the junction station floating in the clouds relatively speaking. That's not an ideal height for working on.

 

Another problem that is taxing my mind at present is how to support the upper level (station) and yet retain the ability to remove a lower level (fiddle yard) baseboard as I think it very unlikely that the positioning of points on the two levels will coincide so the baseboards are liable to be different sizes.

 

I've never had any success at hanging things off walls and suspect that a 2ft deep baseboard cantilevered out from the wall is liable to show a distinct droop at the front edge. I certainly wouldn't trust myself not to lean on that front edge from time to time without thinking.

 

Turning the layout through 180º puts the down end of the station (and fiddle yard below) adjacent to the only garage door that I plan to use. Shortening the layout to avoid the door opening will shorten rather than lengthen the fiddle yard and complicate the design of the access flap significantly.

 

And there's still two hours until breakfast!

Ray have a look at Jason Shron's layout and the way upper levels on that are supported.  Apparently he had to revise his original method but the general idea seems to have stuck.  It looks pretty good but I have a nasty feeling teh difference in timber cost between North America and Britain might render it something of a non-runner for us mere mortals.

Edited May 7, 2015 by The Stationmaster

[Ray H]

Cheers Mike.

 

I'm about to go out so only a quick response - I'll check the other layout out later. Perhaps I should also ask Mike how he supports Dent.

 

One option I have thought of is to use a frameless 12mm plywood base for the fiddle yard and fix that direct to the supports - part frame and part cupboard unit top - with all the wiring surface mounted and the servos - to operate the points - likewise and on the front edge of the board. That way I should never need to remove the fiddle yard boards to work on. I can then support the station on a fixed frame above the fiddle yard.

 

I'm undecided whether to risk lessening the air gap between the two and rely on removing the station board(s) if I need to access a serious mishap below.

 

I have checked and I have 19½" between the top of the floor mounted cupboards and the underside of the wall mounted cupboards so even with a 10" level difference between the two baseboard surfaces I'd still be able to squeeze in a 9" high backscene and I can always paint the underside of the wall cupboards blue!

[Ray H]

I was out and about last Sunday and managed to snap the following as they tend to show the shear amount of variation in shades of green seen on trees found side by side and as someone at a show some while ago said to me "You can invariably see through the greenery on most trees, which isn't the way many are portrayed on layouts."

 

I plan to use these images to assist when I get round to building trees for the layout.

 

[Ray H]

I've been tied up with a number of other things over the past week or so with the result that the layout has all but stalled (temporarily). However I have continued to give thought to the idea of re-locating the fiddle yard under the junction station whilst I've been away from the layout and have decided that this idea is not good because a number of problems that it will introduce are actually more adversely significant than the benefits that I could gain by doing so.

 

In truth the idea might have been seen as a realistic option had the layout (and the woodwork in the garage) been designed initially with this idea in mind. In addition the presence of the floor mounted cupboards (and the vertical close proximity of the wall mounted cupboards above them) place severe restrictions on the way I was looking to modify the design.

 

Consequently I shall be pressing on (in due course) with the previous plan save that I may well reduce the angle of the curved point at Padbry from a 1:9.5 to a 1:8.5 in an effort to draw the siding further away from the rear of the platform. The result will be a divergent route with a radius of 22.5" which is the equivalent of 4th radius set track and down from the previous shade over 2ft figure. The siding will only be used to hold and shunt a few 4-wheeled wagons/vans and the daily trip working is unlikely to be the domain of anything other than an 0-6-0.

 

I've also looked at putting a slight curve into the "straight" side of the first point in the junction goods yard. This enables the track to swing out from the branch line a little better and justifies the creation of a slightly deeper baseboard.

 

I shall print off the relevant pages from Templot and overlay them on those pages already printed before I finalise the shape of the relevant baseboards.

[Andrew P]

I've been tied up with a number of other things over the past week or so with the result that the layout has all but stalled (temporarily). However I have continued to give thought to the idea of re-locating the fiddle yard under the junction station whilst I've been away from the layout and have decided that this idea is not good because a number of problems that it will introduce are actually more adversely significant than the benefits that I could gain by doing so.

 

In truth the idea might have been seen as a realistic option had the layout (and the woodwork in the garage) been designed initially with this idea in mind. In addition the presence of the floor mounted cupboards (and the vertical close proximity of the wall mounted cupboards above them) place severe restrictions on the way I was looking to modify the design.

 

Consequently I shall be pressing on (in due course) with the previous plan save that I may well reduce the angle of the curved point at Padbry from a 1:9.5 to a 1:8.5 in an effort to draw the siding further away from the rear of the platform. The result will be a divergent route with a radius of 22.5" which is the equivalent of 4th radius set track and down from the previous shade over 2ft figure. The siding will only be used to hold and shunt a few 4-wheeled wagons/vans and the daily trip working is unlikely to be the domain of anything other than an 0-6-0.

 

I've also looked at putting a slight curve into the "straight" side of the first point in the junction goods yard. This enables the track to swing out from the branch line a little better and justifies the creation of a slightly deeper baseboard.

 

I shall print off the relevant pages from Templot and overlay them on those pages already printed before I finalise the shape of the relevant baseboards.

Hi Ray,  A wise move re the fiddle yard in my opinion mate, harder to get to change stock / sort out problems / clean track / find bits that have fallen off etc.

 

KISM, Keep it simple Mate.

[Ray H]

A journey to Winslow this morning provided an opportunity to visit the nearby site of what remains of the (original) junction station. I'd been told that the overgrowth had been cleared and so it turned out. This work is part of the initial work associated with the re-opening of the line between Bletchley and Bicester - the section west of Bicester re-opened several years ago and the line east of Bletchley (as far as Bedford) never closed.

 

Interestingly and despite the relatively remote nature of the area (and close proximity of the nearest dwelling - the old Station House) the so called security fence was laying spread eagled on the track bed and platform.

 

All that remains other than the remnants of the down line and the crossing on which I was standing is the basic outline of the two platforms. I was surprised to find how short these appeared to be - I declined to trespass to try to pace them out - but I'd guess that they weren't able to accommodate more than four coaches and a loco. This is rather fortunate as it is all the space that I've allowed!

 

There was no readily visible evidence of any platform structures or the footbridge.

 

The second image doesn't do justice to my attempts to estimate the width of the down (island) platform. The far (and totally invisible) platform face existed to serve the Met line track that terminated at the station. There was a significant awning all around the fairly narrow platform. There has to be a minimum of 6ft between the platform edge and the nearest permanent obstruction - i.e the platform building. Again it wasn't possible to measure the platform depth so I can but estimate that the overall platform width was probably about 20ft making the station building little more than eight foot deep.

 

Something that isn't obvious from the above image is the closeness of the platform edge to the station house given that there was a run round loop track as well as the platform track between the platform edge and the house. The fence that is just visible in front of the house was probably added after the Met tracks had been lifted because I'm certain that there wasn't room for two tracks between the fence and platform.

 

The building is - as far as I can make out - the Station (Master's?) House and looks largely unaltered. I chose not to disturb the residents to ask to take a closer look. The station building - i.e the ticket office - is also extant (beyond the station house) but seems to have been modified, possibly quite recently. Again I left the occupants in peace.

 

---

It was nice to get the feel of the local topography which is largely flat whilst the railway climbs at an easy rate as it heads east. This justifies my decision to have an open top baseboard.

 

I'd long been on the mind that I'd only be trying to build a representation of all three stations that the layout will include and today's visit confirmed that this was the right thing for me to do. The basic ingredients will be there (as far as I am able) but I shan't be a slave to the size and design of any structures nor be faithfully copying the track layout.

 

I don't have room for too much of the area outside the railway fence and the house I have at the junction will definitely only be in low relief (and won't be an attempt to mimic the real dwelling).

 

We came home via Padbury and needn't have bothered for although the route of the track bed is reasonably obvious for much of the time and the road outside what would have been the station has a similar shape to the original, the area is now a new (small) housing estate which I'll guess includes a variation in the road layout.

 

We didn't bother to visit Buckingham as my plans for the station are at significant variance to the original.

[Ray H]

I've just had a couple of days away with time to think as I read a number of back issues of Railway Modeller.

 

I haven't started on the main station baseboard frame construction yet but I've more or less decided that the branch will have a gradual gradient away from the junction, with Padbry and its siding on the level and Buckinhum station, its sidings and the branch fiddle yard beyond also level. I still need to do some calculations to get the precise figures but the gradient will probably be about 1:80 (or less).

 

The branch will leave the junction and then drop gradually along the rest of the long wall of the garage. I will use deeper cross bracing to the baseboard(s) so that I can cut the relevant part out to support the branch trackbed without compromising the rigidity of the rest of the board.

 

The board across the bottom of the garage (where Padbry station is) has to support the main line at "normal" height and allow for the gradient dropping down to and away from Padbry station. I think this will end up effectively being two baseboard frames screwed together, one at the same depth as the main part of the layout, the other a little shallower with blocks added to the bracing to support the varying heights of the trackbed.

 

The boards along the other (long) side of the garage have already been the subject of some attention because of their lack of rigidity as a result of the stepped front edge. I'm minded to rebuild them now before they cause any further problems. My thinking is that they will also effectively comprise two baseboards of different depths screwed together side by side. Each baseboard frame will be the same width throughout its length and any additional width (to accommodate the curves front edge that I want) will be achieved by screwing blocks of the appropriate depth to the outside (straight) edge of the baseboard. This should restore the rigidity and make it easier to slide the boards away from the wall if I need to remove them from the layout to work on. I've realised that the recently added blocks, designed to support the cross bracing - see post 133 - are liable to get knocked if I need to remove a baseboard and will not offer any support to the boards other than when they're resting on the baseboard supports.

[Ray H]

Today should have been busy with fence painting followed by a meal at a friend’s. The wind put paid to the first, our host’s illness the second. An excellent opportunity one would have thought to have used some unexpected free time to press on with the layout. But no, the day has been spent trying to find as little as possible to as far away from the garage and proposed layout as possible. Why?

 

I help operate an SM32 garden railway from time to time. The railway has a return loop at opposite ends of the garden. There are eleven stations although those on the return loops are not staffed. Wagonload and trainload freight services are operated. One station is treated as a marshalling yard transferring wagons between trains as required.

 

The destination of the wagonload vehicles is determined by a letter on the side of the wagon nearest the (station) operator. The translation between letter code and location is refreshed prior to each session. Furthermore the open wagons carry loads which when removed expose the “return to” location for the empty wagon.

 

The routeing of some of the freight trains via the return loops changes the intended destination of the wagons on the train - because the operators now see the letter on the other side of the wagon with the result that a wagon will end up back at the marshalling yard bound for somewhere other than where it was sent the previous time it was there.

 

I’ve gradually been recognising that despite freight traffic on my proposed layout having a number of potential destinations albeit that there are only three yards (with limited facilities) to shunt, restricted access to the main fiddle yard which is behind the branch, will make train re-formation in the fiddle yard difficult.

 

I could resolve this by removing the branch but I then remove two yards to shunt, the fiddle yard at the end of the branch (which is supposed to represent the remaining stations and yards on the branch) and eliminate the need for transferring wagons between trains at the junction (which only had minimal freight traffic in its own right).

 

And there’s more. The branch on the proposed layout has latterly gained an incline that would ease access to the fiddle yard behind although the incline’s main purpose is to emphasise the split between branch and main line beyond the junction.

 

The layout was also intended to have hand-built points – almost forty of them. Those points were going to be servo operated. The consequent split baseboards, the trackwork and the numerous electronic kits that I planned to build (before I could run any trains) have also been playing on my mind.

 

Consequently some of today has been spent trying to find a layout design that includes either a return loop or one or more turntable style fiddle yards. I don’t plan to add letters to the side of my freight stock like the garden railway but I am thinking I could put a small dab of colour – different on each side – where the wagon label would normally be. I could then use the colour through a variable translator to determine a wagon’s destination and turning the stock en masse would reduce the need to reform trains in the fiddle yard.

 

I won't say that this is the end of Virney Junction (before it was ever built) but . . . .

Edited June 6, 2015 by Ray H

[Andrew P]

Hi Ray, I keep reading John Flann's on line book http://www.hintockbranch.com/ (Chapter 11) describing the exploits of his Hintock Branch, and more importantly his operational system, and although I intended to use this system on my BLT that I'm building, I'm now also considering it for Whittaker St as well for more operational interest.

 

All the best with whatever you come up with.

Edited June 6, 2015 by Andrew P

[Ray H]

Thanks Andy

 

I've exchanged posts with John about his system. It largely involves the same wagons going to the same places even if the number of times they do varies unless I've totally misunderstood it.

 

John is happy with it but it lacks a degree of variance for me. In an ideal world I'd like to devise a consignment based system - which is more prototypical - with all the variables that that entails but my initial thinking around that idea seemed to be a bit paper heavy and possibly too complicated for visitors to grasp.

 

I'm still wondering if I'm heading down the wrong track and the problem that I have with trying to arrive at something close to prototypical operation is destined to failure whilst I'm the person that signals the trains, drives the engines and plans the wagon movements. Perhaps that's why I find repeatedly operating the same club layout more acceptable.

 

Like you I maybe destined to have smaller layouts and change them from time to time when I get bored with them.

Edited June 6, 2015 by Ray H