BobM Posted February 18, 2015 Share Posted February 18, 2015 Hello Guys....Could anyone point me in the direction of sites to hand where prototypical track plans exist for engine sheds on the GWR (BR Western Region) may be located as I wish to model such a situation within quite a constrained situation.....Cheers Bob Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nick Holliday Posted February 18, 2015 Share Posted February 18, 2015 Can't help with on-line info, but there are two books (remember them?) by Eddie Lyons covering every GWR loco shed which are well worth investigating. On-line you can always tour the whole system using the old-maps site! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kenton Posted February 18, 2015 Share Posted February 18, 2015 There are three things you need to know - the name of the shed, its location and then an old OS map for the period in question with sufficient detail to show the track. This site will give you any shed location but only a present day Google Map - not much use if the shed no longer exists. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BobM Posted February 18, 2015 Author Share Posted February 18, 2015 I know this isn't a prototypical set up for my layout..however this was the 'single entry' and 'flipped' headshunt inspiration for fitting into the space that I have available....any comments or revamping ideas guys...still searching for a suitable engine shed track plan...Cheers guys....Regards Bob Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
cary hill Posted February 19, 2015 Share Posted February 19, 2015 I know this isn't a prototypical set up for my layout..however this was the 'single entry' and 'flipped' headshunt inspiration for fitting into the space that I have available....any comments or revamping ideas guys...still searching for a suitable engine shed track plan...Cheers guys....Regards Bob Good old CJF if I'm not mistaken. Leamington GWR shed has some similarities, although naturally more sprawling, but it could be pruned, simplified and shortened to good effect. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BobM Posted February 19, 2015 Author Share Posted February 19, 2015 Good old CJF if I'm not mistaken. Leamington GWR shed has some similarities, although naturally more sprawling, but it could be pruned, simplified and shortened to good effect. gwr shed leamington.jpg Yes Cary ....It is one of his I believe..... this was my initial thumb sketch which I hope to modify...I need assistance though...I have headshunts which allows access to engine shed by reversing in and out and there's direct access to the turntable then onto the shed....but help please Thanks Bob Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
cary hill Posted February 20, 2015 Share Posted February 20, 2015 To my eyes that looks a very complicated layout. I would have thought it better if the relief line was nearest to the shed, as the light engine movements on and off shed would be much neater without all that criss-crossing of the mainlines. Flipping CJF's plan would be a neater solution. There do not seem to be that many GWR "medium" sized loco sheds where the turntable is divorced from the shed - they tend to cling obstinately close together at the same end of the complex, which is inconvenient for width when modeled. One example where they are at opposite ends which might serve is Chippenham, a three road shed: Flip it and lose the slightly bizarre entry to the gasworks and you might have the basis for a "workable" shed with fairly simple track work. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BobM Posted February 20, 2015 Author Share Posted February 20, 2015 Thanks Cary.........looks a good one to have a play around with....I do appreciate all the input that this site generates...it is warming and heartening that there is so much good will, knowledge and sharing to be found.... Cheers Bob Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BobM Posted February 20, 2015 Author Share Posted February 20, 2015 To my eyes that looks a very complicated layout. I would have thought it better if the relief line was nearest to the shed, as the light engine movements on and off shed would be much neater without all that criss-crossing of the mainlines. Flipping CJF's plan would be a neater solution. There do not seem to be that many GWR "medium" sized loco sheds where the turntable is divorced from the shed - they tend to cling obstinately close together at the same end of the complex, which is inconvenient for width when modeled. One example where they are at opposite ends which might serve is Chippenham, a three road shed: ChippenhamShed.jpg Flip it and lose the slightly bizarre entry to the gasworks and you might have the basis for a "workable" shed with fairly simple track work. Of course I could always consider a stabling yard such as an abridged 'Ranelagh Bridge' .....? Regards Bob Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BobM Posted February 21, 2015 Author Share Posted February 21, 2015 To my eyes that looks a very complicated layout. I would have thought it better if the relief line was nearest to the shed, as the light engine movements on and off shed would be much neater without all that criss-crossing of the mainlines. Flipping CJF's plan would be a neater solution. There do not seem to be that many GWR "medium" sized loco sheds where the turntable is divorced from the shed - they tend to cling obstinately close together at the same end of the complex, which is inconvenient for width when modeled. One example where they are at opposite ends which might serve is Chippenham, a three road shed: ChippenhamShed.jpg Flip it and lose the slightly bizarre entry to the gasworks and you might have the basis for a "workable" shed with fairly simple track work. How 'workable' does this shed layout look? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Graham Walters Posted February 21, 2015 Share Posted February 21, 2015 You could always have a look at Ross on Wye shed, small, but historically important as it was originally built for broad gauge engines, Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BobM Posted February 21, 2015 Author Share Posted February 21, 2015 You could always have a look at Ross on Wye shed, small, but historically important as it was originally built for broad gauge engines, Cheers Graham.... I believe that my on my volutnter railway SVR - Kiddermister design was based on that fine station building? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Graham Walters Posted February 21, 2015 Share Posted February 21, 2015 Cheers Graham.... I believe that my on my volutnter railway SVR - Kiddermister design was based on that fine station building? Yep that's right, I think they wanted to buy and move the actual building, but it got demolished before the deal could go through, but they built a replica anyway. Not sure if thats a myth or not, you could probably find out, as Ross wasn't a typical GWR station. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BobM Posted February 22, 2015 Author Share Posted February 22, 2015 Is this proposed shed layout workable? Cheers....comments appreciated..... Bob Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nick Holliday Posted February 22, 2015 Share Posted February 22, 2015 I'm sorry, but I don't quite understand what you mean by "workable"! You can build that track plan and it should work, in as much as you can access all the shed roads and the turntable, and it might be possible to come up with a scenario to explain it. However, I would say it is far too complicated. Your shed is only two roads, and a small shed like that is not going to need separate access to each road and the turntable for each direction. Look at the Chippenham plan, and, as advised, ignore the gas works siding, and the design is very simple, using a handful of turnouts to serve a larger shed. Locos at a depot of this size are not going to be whizzing about in every direction all the time. Also, even the largest depots seldom had separate up and down access directly to the running lines. The norm would be to have a trailing connection from the nearest running line, rather than a facing one, with a trailing connection to the other to allow locos to return to the station or yard concerned. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BobM Posted February 22, 2015 Author Share Posted February 22, 2015 I'm sorry, but I don't quite understand what you mean by "workable"! You can build that track plan and it should work, in as much as you can access all the shed roads and the turntable, and it might be possible to come up with a scenario to explain it. However, I would say it is far too complicated. Your shed is only two roads, and a small shed like that is not going to need separate access to each road and the turntable for each direction. Look at the Chippenham plan, and, as advised, ignore the gas works siding, and the design is very simple, using a handful of turnouts to serve a larger shed. Locos at a depot of this size are not going to be whizzing about in every direction all the time. Also, even the largest depots seldom had separate up and down access directly to the running lines. The norm would be to have a trailing connection from the nearest running line, rather than a facing one, with a trailing connection to the other to allow loco to return to the station or yard concerned. Cheers for the comments...taken onboard.....much appreciated....will have a rethink on design based around Chippenham....any other thoughts will be greatly received.... Cheers Bob Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BobM Posted February 22, 2015 Author Share Posted February 22, 2015 I'm sorry, but I don't quite understand what you mean by "workable"! You can build that track plan and it should work, in as much as you can access all the shed roads and the turntable, and it might be possible to come up with a scenario to explain it. However, I would say it is far too complicated. Your shed is only two roads, and a small shed like that is not going to need separate access to each road and the turntable for each direction. Look at the Chippenham plan, and, as advised, ignore the gas works siding, and the design is very simple, using a handful of turnouts to serve a larger shed. Locos at a depot of this size are not going to be whizzing about in every direction all the time. Also, even the largest depots seldom had separate up and down access directly to the running lines. The norm would be to have a trailing connection from the nearest running line, rather than a facing one, with a trailing connection to the other to allow locos to return to the station or yard concerned. Have just 'revisited' the scene of the crime...and after being away from the layout for a number of hours I can very well see all the points raised here....my plan is far too complicated for the size of shed contemplated, will take note....I do appreciate all the comments above and i take them in the 'helpful spirit' in which they were made Nick.....I will simplified the running line connections to a simple trailng entry.....I get back to all you kind guys with modifications for scrutiny...Have a good week.....Regards Bob Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Karhedron Posted February 23, 2015 Share Posted February 23, 2015 There do not seem to be that many GWR "medium" sized loco sheds where the turntable is divorced from the shed - they tend to cling obstinately close together at the same end of the complex, which is inconvenient for width when modeled. One example where they are at opposite ends which might serve is Chippenham, a three road shed: ChippenhamShed.jpg Flip it and lose the slightly bizarre entry to the gasworks and you might have the basis for a "workable" shed with fairly simple track work. Thanks for sharing that plan. I had actually been looking for something similar myself. The joys of designing a layout by glueing together bits from different location. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike 84C Posted February 23, 2015 Share Posted February 23, 2015 The main thing to remember is that, in medium and large sheds there was a flow of locos off the main line., fire cleaning, coal, turntable, stabling. I have no experience of small GW sheds but worked to a number in the B/ham and London division I the "60"s. If you think I have forgotten watering, crews were expected to come on shed with a sensible amount in the tank, and the next crew, often the prep; men would fill the tank. Regards Mick Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BobM Posted February 23, 2015 Author Share Posted February 23, 2015 Has this 'flow',,,,or 'legs' to progress with further adjustments... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
cary hill Posted February 23, 2015 Share Posted February 23, 2015 I'm beginning to think you need to sell your pair of "slips". as they are still over complicating things. I have noticed that they appear in all four of your shed plans to date. I've just had a very quick flick through my copy of "WR BR Steam Motive Power Depots - Paul Bolger" and counted only 17 shed plans out of 72 featuring single or double slips. Most of these slips are in very peripheral areas rather than at the centre of operations. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BobM Posted February 23, 2015 Author Share Posted February 23, 2015 Hee Hee thanks for the comment....and just why I love the input that everyone provides......thankfully this isn't my final shed plan at all...I am attempting to use the two sheds, Leamington and Chippenham as the basis for something...with a bit of help.... Cheers... Bob Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BobM Posted February 24, 2015 Author Share Posted February 24, 2015 I'm beginning to think you need to sell your pair of "slips". as they are still over complicating things. I have noticed that they appear in all four of your shed plans to date. I've just had a very quick flick through my copy of "WR BR Steam Motive Power Depots - Paul Bolger" and counted only 17 shed plans out of 72 featuring single or double slips. Most of these slips are in very peripheral areas rather than at the centre of operations. On an addition thread regarding engine sheds....Siberian Snooper..kindly came up with this shed scenario...only one double slip! Comments? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Karhedron Posted February 24, 2015 Share Posted February 24, 2015 It looks odd to have the coaling stage directly off the turntable like that. That means a loco shunting coal wagons to the stage would have to haul the trucks onto the turntable and the whole lot would then have to be turned before proceeding to the coaling stage. I am not an expert on shed movements but that doesn't sound quite right to me. Do you have an examples where the coal stage was accessible only from the turntable in this way? I think you would be better off working with the Chippenham plan. Trim off the gasworks bits and you have a pretty minimalist arrangement with just the essentials. Here is a crudely edited image to give an idea. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Happy Hippo Posted February 24, 2015 RMweb Gold Share Posted February 24, 2015 If you want a small two road shed, try Penmaenpool The SRS diagram shows the whole station, but the shed was served by two sidings off the the running road. http://www.s-r-s.org.uk/html/gwu/S3279.htm Frank Collins has already made a marvellous model of this and it can be seen in his Steam on the Cambrian thread. If you want to see how a shed layout should be done then I think the best of the bunch is Steffan Lewis's 'Maindee East'. There are a good selection of photos here http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/42899-scaleforum-2011/page-5 As Lord Nelson said to King Arthur: 'I see no slips!' Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.