The Great Bear Posted October 20, 2011 Share Posted October 20, 2011 Hello Firstly, sorry in advance that this in long post - you can always just ingore my waffle and jump to the plan... Some of you may have seen my first layout, a GWR branch line terminus, Marlingford. This has an unusual layout to shoehorn the layout into a small space. I now am fortunate to have a 14' x 10' shed to accommodate something more extensive, giving increased and more varied operational scope. Here's a list of criteria for the layout: Necessities 14' x10' shed (408cm x 285cm internal between skirting boards) Doorway on left (to 80cm), opens outward but small standing area in corner for coat etc needed Lift out section for occasional access, in normal use duck-under would be ok Windows on front (ledge at 88cm from floor) open at top, some obstruction of bottom of windows should be OK Space for desk (say 120cm x 60cm x 75cm) and office chair , desk could be under layout if height suits Space needed under layout for storage boxes (66cm x 43cm x 25cm high) Layout to be removable if need arose, not permanent oo gauge 600mm desirable min radius hidden tracks, yards, 500mm absolute min 750mm desirable min radius running lines DCC Wants Operating interest largely for solo operation or with occasional assistance A medium sized terminus, large branch line/cross-country line/small mainline with decent sized goods yard GWR, not necessarily west country or seaside Continuous run of some sort (or possibly an out and back with a good run) to allow watching trains go by and allow running in of locos. Ideally double track, but not essential, not too busy otherwise excessive stock requirements beyond space available Another station in addition to terminus - junction for continuous run or intermediate on out and back? Turntable Engine shed Prototype inspired layout, with "signature" track layout aspects/features from prototype Operational signals (forthcoming Dapol?) Capable of timetabled operation Moderate length trains - 5/6 coach max passenger trains, 15 or so wagon freight RTR stock initially, tension lock couplings (possibly with Brian Kirby mod) Locos to include Prairie tanks, small tender engines (including forthcoming Dukedog) Use of autotrain Also scope for larger engines - Castle, Hall, Grange, 28xx (ie all but King) Potential for older/absorbed company engines (would need kitbuilding! radius might well rule out) Strong preference for single level to ease woodwork and access Facility for staged construction, build less complex bits first A named train (a bonus only) A signature industry e.g. creamery DCC sound I have Iain Rice's "Designs for Urban Layout" book and in that, his "Some Other Victoria" inspired by Swansea Victoria is a favourite, combining a terminus with a continuous run. I've tried to adapt this to a western flavour and come up with this, "Cheltford Spa", inspired by Cheltenham St James. On the plan: The circles are 750mm radius to get an idea of what can be reached Trackwork as drawn is generally Peco code 75 but there are some Shinohara curved points used: other options including Tillig, Marcway and handbuilt pointwork will be considered, the latter should make it more flowing but not at all sure if I have skill - that is something I will explore. So what's drawn is a benchmark that should be able to be finessed I envisage building the continuous run first then if this proves too hard the terminus can be reduced in scope. Possibly use Marlingford as a stand in for the final terminus. Fiddleyard/staging envisaged as: Honneybourne - autotrain Gloucester/Kingham - Prairie and 4 coaches Paddington/Banbury - Prairie or tender engine and 5 coaches (I know the "Flyer" was hauled by tank engine to Gloucester) Freight to terminus - small tender engine and approx 15 wagons Continuous run passenger - large tender engine and 6 coaches (let's say its not summer) Continuous run freight - large tender engine and approx 20 wagons It fulfils most of the wants on my list, but I have some reservations on what I've come up with: Unusual (or novel!) layout footrpint to accommodate the terminus (the width and the turntable location) leading to: Complex shape of baseboards Could do with a bit more room in the centre of the room, not much manoeuvring space on the chair [*]Fiddleyard size, depends on how much fiddling I guess! [*]Space to access and operate fiddleyard - it's tight (could just walk through with arms raised), too much so? [*]Too much track? If so what to rationalise, without losing essence of the prototype [*]Too compressed, better to vary more from the prototype? [*]Balance of terminal, the goods facilities have been rationalised much more than the passenger facilities, the separate coal yard from the prototype have already been cut - then again there should be more than enough to keep me busy! [*]I haven't really considered a multi-level layout, I assume these are fraught with difficulties? I can't think of any other examples on RMWeb apart from Eastwood Town and I am not sure if I have the woodworking skills or patience. Or could this be a solution here? Any thoughts or observations on my areas of concern and the layout concept would be very much appreciated; I'm quite smitten with this concept but the spatial issues are a big nagging doubt. Alternatively, if you have any suggestions of alternative prototypes that would do similar then this would also be interesting and welcome. Thanks for looking and getting this far! Jon Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold The Stationmaster Posted October 20, 2011 RMweb Gold Share Posted October 20, 2011 It's rather fun isn't it But (and sorry there has to be a 'but') the 'person space' looks awful tight - I will going into a roughly similar site in 'the room' and it is a bit wider and a couple of feet longer and I am being very wary of encroaching into the middle of it as I conjure with ideas about peninsulas and helix spirals (the being no more than a way of moving between what will hopefully be several different levels as an alternative to long gradients round the room) but I do have the disadvantage of having expanded to 'broad gauge' as I have aged - but still I do wonder about the person space. The track layout looks marvellously complex but it might stand a little simplification at the terminus (but not much or you'd lose a lot of atmosphere) although I think the through station and loco shed connections could do with a bit of further thought. However my biggest concern is the lack of offstage staging/hidden sidings space and the lack of operational flexibility in the way it is arranged. You will have a terminus with considerable capacity but far less capacity at 'the other end' of your route with a far from simple situation when it comes to turning trains round to go back to the terminus. Effectively it would have to be worked as a staging yard - I think- which is then going to limit you to 3 or 4 trains at each end when you start your operating session then stopping the session after they have done whatever they are going to do and re-setting things for the next session plus a cassette in a relatively awkward place to access. Now all of that might suit you but you do need to think very carefully if it will, or do you want something more operational that provides more activity for each running session? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lmsforever Posted October 20, 2011 Share Posted October 20, 2011 Looking good try not to clutter with to much track ,simplicity can offer a lot of operation and enable you to go to town on scenery and buildings ,asyou have shown on your previous layout. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
cary hill Posted October 21, 2011 Share Posted October 21, 2011 Congratulations on capturing the essence of Cheltenham St James - I initially thought the terminus turntable looked odd but, having checked my reference materials, I see it is spot on and how you have successfully managed to omit one of the station middle roads and the various sprawling sidings to very good effect. Would I be right in surmising that the passing station incorporates some elements of Cheltenham Malvern Road, but I can see how shoehorning the loco depot there into the available space is/was problematical? Just had a sneaky look at some timetables for the two Cheltenham stations and I can now see why a "just supposing" version of them could have added future appeal with "Malvern Road" seeing through services not terminating at "St.James." Although if you have considered this I think I would like a bit more "offstage" storage too. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kenton Posted October 21, 2011 Share Posted October 21, 2011 My biggest concern is the location of, and more specifically access to, the turntable. Highly unlikely IMO as this would be blocked by any stock in the platform and involves a rather difficult route. What is wrong with a spur off at the signal box? Though I would have placed it in the yard of the engine shed, where it belongs. I also get the feeling that the station throat is overly complex. That stub of a parcels track probably should simply be an extension of the spur and not be taken off mid platform. it would allow more reasonably long trains for both. As a plan it certainly crams a lot in but I also think it will feel very claustrophobic in that small operational well. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr Gerbil-Fritters Posted October 21, 2011 Share Posted October 21, 2011 That's an outstanding job on capturing the essence of my all-time favourite provincial town terminus... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Kris Posted October 21, 2011 RMweb Premium Share Posted October 21, 2011 I would be tempted to do this as a folded figure of 8 with the fiddle yards being under the lower station. I would be building these as loops with the innermost one having a cassette. This would put a strain on your wood working and I am not sure if you can loose enough space to make it work in one loop so you may need to add a second loop of the shed to do it well but if these are at the edge then this should not be too much of a problem. This could also give you a little more space to add in a bit of the original coal yard. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Katier Posted October 21, 2011 Share Posted October 21, 2011 Nice track plan, I agree with The Stationmaster space might be tight. I wonder how much space you'd gain (and operational potential you'd lose) but losing the center line ( I know you've dropped on already) from the main platform roads, maybe you could drop the little parcels siding and 'double use' the platform. Your parcels line is quite short anyway, and maybe remove one of the 3 general merchandise/coal roads. That should give you another 6-9 inches to play with without ( I hope ) unduly effecting the operating potential. I think you could simplify the other station too to give you a bit more room, maybe removing the 'run around loop'/goods line and simplifying the loco depot. Maybe (not sure how prototypical this is) you could remove the shed but keep the coal drop. Make is a servicing point for the terminus rather than a small depot. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Great Bear Posted October 21, 2011 Author Share Posted October 21, 2011 Thank you all for the interest and comments so far. That's an outstanding job on capturing the essence of my all-time favourite provincial town terminus... Thanks - it was your post of that plan in Feb followed by looking at old maps and seeing the Honeybourne line junction and Malvern Road station that got me thinking about this a potential prototype to crib. Would I be right in surmising that the passing station incorporates some elements of Cheltenham Malvern Road, but I can see how shoehorning the loco depot there into the available space is/was problematical? Yes, two of the goods loops have been removed and the shed layout is completely different, inspired by Stratford upon Avon to get something to fit. I think the through station and loco shed connections could do with a bit of further thought. Are you referring to facing points, Mike, or something else? The facing points were there in the protoype; what I haven't shown and I know would be needed would be a trap point (dummy wide to guage perhaps) on the bay line. http://www.s-r-s.org...l/gwg/S2561.htm http://www.archive-i...?gid=116&img=91 I am taking in the comments on the fiddleyard/space, which is the nub of it and will reply a bit later Thanks Jon Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Great Bear Posted October 21, 2011 Author Share Posted October 21, 2011 My biggest concern is the location of, and more specifically access to, the turntable. Highly unlikely IMO as this would be blocked by any stock in the platform and involves a rather difficult route. What is wrong with a spur off at the signal box? Though I would have placed it in the yard of the engine shed, where it belongs. Kenton, I agree it's a strange place for the turntable, hemmed in by the wall of the school and I do wonder why it put there and how it worked as as you say only the train on that arrival platform could use it. Loco on turntable: http://www.steampict...nt/1372376.html Aerial photo: http://www.heritage-explorer.co.uk/web/he/searchdetail.aspx?id=9335&crit=&cid=31&tid=372&large=1 In almost all the photos I've seen the services at St James are tank engine operated, and how many tender engines ran into the station is something I've been wondering; especially before the late 50s when the MSWJR route trains switched to it. I don't think the turntable was that big, there used to be good site on Fotopic with lots of good pictures, if I recall correctly it could take a mogul, there being the triangle of tracks on the south side of Cheltenham to turn locos. In one of the Middleton Press books it does show a prairie running onto it to be turned, to even out wear presumably? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Kris Posted October 21, 2011 RMweb Premium Share Posted October 21, 2011 Kenton, I agree it's a strange place for the turntable, hemmed in by the wall of the school and I do wonder why it put there and how it worked as as you say only the train on that arrival platform could use it. If that platform was used as the main arrivals platform then having the turntable there is no great issue. Train comes in, loco detaches and runs to TT, coaches withdrawn to sidings whilst loco is turned, loco runs to shed. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
devondynosoar118 Posted October 21, 2011 Share Posted October 21, 2011 Very interesting plan, certainly lots of potential. I'm not sure I would ever get it finished! Funny how the real world contains awkward to operate layouts you would try to avoid in a model. Bet lots of engine men came from that school too. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Katier Posted October 21, 2011 Share Posted October 21, 2011 I don't think the turntable was that big, there used to be good site on Fotopic with lots of good pictures, if I recall correctly it could take a mogul, there being the triangle of tracks on the south side of Cheltenham to turn locos. It's DEFINITELY a small table, the picture shows a 4-4-0 on it and that fills the table. Mogul might just squeeze on but I bet that was right on the limit. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Great Bear Posted October 21, 2011 Author Share Posted October 21, 2011 It's DEFINITELY a small table, the picture shows a 4-4-0 on it and that fills the table. Mogul might just squeeze on but I bet that was right on the limit. Looks like a Duke to me with 3000 gallon tender which Russell gives as being 56' over the buffers, given that buffer ends look about above edge of table, 55' looks to be about right. Mogul and tender have 48'6" wheelbase so that'd work, just possibly a Manor too but ever so tight wheels only just on it either end, so maybe not due to balance? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kenton Posted October 21, 2011 Share Posted October 21, 2011 Kenton, I agree it's a strange place for the turntable, hemmed in by the wall of the school and I do wonder why it put there and how it worked as as you say only the train on that arrival platform could use it. Loco on turntable: http://www.steampict...nt/1372376.html I wonder if it was the turntable that had been in existence at Cheltenham St James Engine Shed? It had been located at the west end of Cheltenham St James station on the north side of the line. It was a timber built 2 track straight dead-ended shed with a gable style slate roof and was demolished in 1906 to make room for a junction and new line to Honeybourne. It had a 40ft turntable and a coal stage. The station evidently was enlarged at some date and perhaps the turntable was moved to that new location. It would still make some sense to keep it for use at that date for turning the tender engines, rather than sending them off to be turned on the triangle. Which would have been more time consuming. Of course there is no reason why it would not have been upgraded to 55ft at the same time or later. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold The Stationmaster Posted October 21, 2011 RMweb Gold Share Posted October 21, 2011 Are you referring to facing points, Mike, or something else? The facing points were there in the protoype; what I haven't shown and I know would be needed would be a trap point (dummy wide to guage perhaps) on the bay line. http://www.s-r-s.org...l/gwg/S2561.htm http://www.archive-i...?gid=116&img=91 Jon Partly the facing connection Jon (but that is now answered) but more particularly that whole end looks a bit 'crammed in' with a single slip and two double slips in succession (which I shouldn't rightly criticise because may last portable layout wasn't much different in one place ) and I was wondering about another way in trailing off the loop but that would mean moves via the already awkward staging area. I think tho' that the connection where the loop comes into the shed line/main line connection should be a single slip instead of what I see on the plan (perhaps incorrectly?) as a double slip. As far as trapping the bay is concerned i think you might be looking for something which isn't there. The photo clearly shows only the one point and while the signalling diagram is very small scale I have a feeling the trapping was achieved by independent operation of each switch in what looks like an ordinary point - quite how you would do that on a model with other than handbuilt points is something of a puzzle so perhaps don't bother and never let it show in photos. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Great Bear Posted October 21, 2011 Author Share Posted October 21, 2011 However my biggest concern is the lack of offstage staging/hidden sidings space and the lack of operational flexibility in the way it is arranged. You will have a terminus with considerable capacity but far less capacity at 'the other end' of your route with a far from simple situation when it comes to turning trains round to go back to the terminus. Effectively it would have to be worked as a staging yard - I think- which is then going to limit you to 3 or 4 trains at each end when you start your operating session then stopping the session after they have done whatever they are going to do and re-setting things for the next session plus a cassette in a relatively awkward place to access. Now all of that might suit you but you do need to think very carefully if it will, or do you want something more operational that provides more activity for each running session? Just had a sneaky look at some timetables for the two Cheltenham stations and I can now see why a "just supposing" version of them could have added future appeal with "Malvern Road" seeing through services not terminating at "St.James." Although if you have considered this I think I would like a bit more "offstage" storage too. Some through trains are envisaged - but not intended to be the main event, just a plausible excuse for larger engines and watching trains go by. (I couldn't resist the 28xx at the bargain price and have a Grange that can't be accomodated on my BLT. I desire a Castle but resisted, hoping one in late GW livery would be released, oh well) I think the passenger service on this line wasn't that intensive, the autotrain shuttle to Honeybourne and in the late 40s only a few long distance trains. I'm presuming this line was more heavily used for freight? To get an accurate handle of the fiddleyard requirements it looks like I need to consider closely the operation, develop an outline timetable?. I did have stab at deciphering information on Timetable World for 1949. But the goods operations are a mystery at the moment. Given the compromises in the layout, following the real timetable probably can't be done, but would give a starting point. As I've been using XTrackCad I could even have a go at simulating train operations, having set up custom rolling stock. A lot to think about: I agree what's shown is far from ideal. Thanks Jon Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Great Bear Posted October 21, 2011 Author Share Posted October 21, 2011 I would be tempted to do this as a folded figure of 8 with the fiddle yards being under the lower station. I would be building these as loops with the innermost one having a cassette. This would put a strain on your wood working and I am not sure if you can loose enough space to make it work in one loop so you may need to add a second loop of the shed to do it well but if these are at the edge then this should not be too much of a problem. This could also give you a little more space to add in a bit of the original coal yard. Thanks Kris. One circuit by my reckoning is approximately a 7m run so at 1:50 would give 140mm or so. I'm guessing for purely staging that order of clearance might just do, if the fiddle tracks, are on the inside and emegency access can be arranged from on top or behind? If going for a multi-level solution if a return loop could be snuck in that would make operation simpler, big things though likely not enough room for that unless compromise further on min radius down to setrack levels. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Kris Posted October 22, 2011 RMweb Premium Share Posted October 22, 2011 Given that you would only end up with 140mm I would go for a second loop to give the extra clearance that would allow you to easily clean and rescue stock from the main yards. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave777 Posted October 22, 2011 Share Posted October 22, 2011 Couple more points to throw into the mix. You mentioned 'Layout to be removable if need arose, not permanent', and I can't see any baseboard joins. The main station for example would be a mightly big board to lift or get through the door. Perhaps you'd just take the shed apart instead, but if you want to consider moving the baseboards later then now's the time to think about it! I'm bias towards simple layouts, and I note your desire for interesting operating. I just wonder though... is it just a little too complicated for single handed operation? Would the layout look better without the second station? There's not much in the way of open running line, and with 5 or 6 coach trains the last coach would still be in the station throat of the terminus as the loco entered the through station. Finally... I'm not sure I would ever get it finished! A valid point. You didn't mention time scale, but that's a multi-year project, probably 5-10 years before completion. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold The Stationmaster Posted October 22, 2011 RMweb Gold Share Posted October 22, 2011 I do of course have the service timetables for 1947 and late pre-war (but no local freight trip books if such things existed back then but the service TTs probably give the pilot hours if nothing else on very local working). Sorry but no coach working stuff at all for that area. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rovex Posted October 22, 2011 Share Posted October 22, 2011 From what I can decypher from the GWR 1947 timetable, there looks to have been some eight trains too and from Paddington per day, 20 trains or so too and from Gloucester (although this probably double counts the Paddington trains), four trains too and from Kingham, eight too and from (or at least towards) Honeybourne and at least one through train from Paddington to Fishguard. So probably about 32 passenger trains per day (possibly more) - I agree the timetable isn't the easiest thing to follow. I've been trying to work out a timetable for my proposed layout and until you sit down and write it out, it is possible to count trains twice - but even so not quite the backwater you might have thought. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Great Bear Posted October 22, 2011 Author Share Posted October 22, 2011 From what I can decypher from the GWR 1947 timetable, there looks to have been some eight trains too and from Paddington per day, 20 trains or so too and from Gloucester (although this probably double counts the Paddington trains), four trains too and from Kingham, eight too and from (or at least towards) Honeybourne and at least one through train from Paddington to Fishguard. So probably about 32 passenger trains per day (possibly more) - I agree the timetable isn't the easiest thing to follow. I've been trying to work out a timetable for my proposed layout and until you sit down and write it out, it is possible to count trains twice - but even so not quite the backwater you might have thought. Thank you for this, that's similar to what I've got from 1949: 5 services to Paddington/services with carriages to Paddington via Gloucester, 1 to Paddington via Kingham, 8 to Honeybourne, 4 to Kingham, and 18 to Gloucester (in additon to the Paddington ones). Services to Wales are a mystery, I can't work out if the entries are for connecting trains or not; I think they are. As you say, a very busy place (not altogether surprising I suppose, four platforms and the carriage sidings bit of a clue), so a lot of pruning required. The one good thing is trains will be relatively short, for instance I believe the "Flyer" was 5 coaches from Cheltenham joining others including restaurant car and coach from Hereford at Gloucester. Seeing as your layout is inspired by Snow Hill this must have been a mighty challenge for you and your resulting fiddle yard enormous? Once again thanks, Jon Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
devondynosoar118 Posted October 22, 2011 Share Posted October 22, 2011 If you did this in 2mm you would have more than enough space... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr Gerbil-Fritters Posted October 22, 2011 Share Posted October 22, 2011 One of the books I have has the freight workings as well as the pax in the timetable. I'll look it up over the weekend. Regarding the plan, I would prune the Malvern Road station in favour of keeping as much of St James as possible, and having a decent staging yard to hold a good amount of traffic... running the terminus to a reasonably authentic timetable will keep you busy enough, no need for another station or loco depot I would suggest. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.