The Great Bear Posted February 1, 2012 Share Posted February 1, 2012 Hello I'm trying to figure out whether I can sensibly incoporate my existing GWR BLT Marlingford into something larger. I now have a 14'x10' space to work with. My initial idea for this new space, Cheltford Spa http://www.rmweb.co....__fromsearch__1 is too ambitious, for now at least. I've been wondering whether I can keep my existing layout but combine with a continuous oval layout as the branchline off the mainline. I want to explore the continuous run to give some stock I have not suitable for a BLT a workout and see whether I'll enjoy or not the continuous run. I can still then get some end to end operation by operating the whole of the Marlingford branch. Also, by keeping my existing layout it would encourage me to complete things like the signals and other scenic bits - current idea being a gasworks. Here's my current effort: The layout of Marlingford being on quite a wide board impinges a fair bit into the room. But its layout does allow the branch train to hide off scene for suitable period if I wanted. Marlingford was originally a bit like Wallingford, but without space for a four track mainline my current thought is somewhere north of Oxford, with less traffic, the mainline station being inspired by Kidlington. I think it's certainly more attainable than my previous idea, but still am not convinced. In particular I am not sure about the fiddleyard and operation how much "fiddling", whether to reverse trains or run a parade etc. The continuous run layouts I've seen have monster fiddleyards which I don't have space for. Any comments or suggestions would as always be much appreciated. Thanks for looking Jon Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold The Stationmaster Posted February 1, 2012 RMweb Gold Share Posted February 1, 2012 A couple of thoughts Jon - 1. Will you be able to reach over Marlingford to that end of the 'hidden sidings' or would it be better (but still with some access problems) to move Marlingford to the left, clear of the h.s. pointwork and possibly even put it above the loops to give you more room in the operating well? 2.I quite like the track layout for Begbrooke although it might get a bit boring operationally - unless you're happy watching most of the trains 'just pass by'? An alternative idea would be a mirror image of Radley (to get the branch lead off in the direction you need) which had far more through trains than Kidlington although both offer opportunities for non Western locos/stock of course. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Great Bear Posted February 1, 2012 Author Share Posted February 1, 2012 Thanks for comments, Mike 1. Will you be able to reach over Marlingford to that end of the 'hidden sidings' or would it be better (but still with some access problems) to move Marlingford to the left, clear of the h.s. pointwork and possibly even put it above the loops to give you more room in the operating well? Yes that's a concern, moving the branch to the left would make accessing the y-point on the central two roads easier and allow swapping loco ends. I'll have a look. I don't think there's enough distance to lift the branch up over the hidden tracks whilst keeping a sensible grade (especially now I've taken the traction tyres off my 14xx) 2.I quite like the track layout for Begbrooke although it might get a bit boring operationally - unless you're happy watching most of the trains 'just pass by'? An alternative idea would be a mirror image of Radley (to get the branch lead off in the direction you need) which had far more through trains than Kidlington although both offer opportunities for non Western locos/stock of course. I did look a the plan of Radley, but Kidlington appealed because the branch diverged to the left, aslo the lie-by on the up line. On the prototype the branch was also used to put slow trains aside but in my model the loop's too short unless they back in. Also, having restricted space I was looking for a slightly less busy mainline - which I'm thinking this was, looking at a 1949 WR timetable suggests this. I had noticed some potential for non-western stock (LNER or SR) stock. Were the locos changed at Oxford, so I could justify an LNER loco? With my creamery on the branch I can generate a bit more operation at the junctiion station. Also, if I could get the bacon factory that was at Kiddlington to fit, there would be more potential for traffic too - trouble is it would be where the lift out section is. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold The Stationmaster Posted February 2, 2012 RMweb Gold Share Posted February 2, 2012 All understood Jon so no more comments other than to answer your queries. 1. You would definitely have LNER and SR stock passing through and possibly LMS too (on some trains from the Midlands to the Kent coast). But up there - without checking the timetable you wouldn't normally see any non-GW locos apart from the LNER through working to Swindon at the weekend although I suppose it's possible an LNER loco occasionally got past Banbury (and you could use a touch of licence to have a daily LNER working). 2. Nothing wrong with backing a train (freight) into a refuge siding so you could use the loop in that way if you wish. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jules Posted February 2, 2012 Share Posted February 2, 2012 Nice idea. Could you have Marlingford at a higher level, over the fiddle yard? That would stop it impinging of the centre space too much. I guess the gradient might be a bit steep though? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Great Bear Posted February 19, 2012 Author Share Posted February 19, 2012 Nice idea. Could you have Marlingford at a higher level, over the fiddle yard? That would stop it impinging of the centre space too much. I guess the gradient might be a bit steep though? Thanks, Jules. Yes, you're right the gradients would not work without at least a whole lap around the room (having taken the traction tyres off the 14xx I suspect means gradients would need to be very gentle) and that seems a bit too complex for now. Also as proposed, I can keep Marlingford on the trestles supporting it, thus the terminus could be moved to allow accees for cleaning/repair of the storage tracks. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
edcayton Posted February 20, 2012 Share Posted February 20, 2012 Two comments really. To run round the branch train at the junction you have to propel half way back to the terminus! I think that having part of the station on what looks like a lifting flap is likely to lead to problems. However, it's very easy to sit and pick holes in someone's design, and you can end up prevaricating (or should that be procrastinating?) for ever and there is a great deal to be said for laying the track and playing with it to find out the faults that bug YOU, cos it's your train set! Looking good Ed Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
cary hill Posted February 20, 2012 Share Posted February 20, 2012 Two comments really. To run round the branch train at the junction you have to propel half way back to the terminus! I think that having part of the station on what looks like a lifting flap is likely to lead to problems. Ed I thought the staple branch train was a 14xx plus autocoach - so running round would not be necessary. The proposed lifting flap is located where the trackwork is simplest - I thought it was deliberate planning. Just a different take on things really Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Great Bear Posted February 20, 2012 Author Share Posted February 20, 2012 Thanks for the further comments To run round the branch train at the junction you have to propel half way back to the terminus! Yes it's a bit strange, but that's how the layout at Kidlington on which the plan is based was, when the Woodstock branch was added there wasn't enough room to fit the run around loop in between the existing station and the existing overbridge. As Cary Hill says the typical branch train is an autotrain so doesn't make any difference most of the time. I think that having part of the station on what looks like a lifting flap is likely to lead to problems. Yes I agree, it's on the only section of plain track but I can see that a joint in the platform would be problematic. I've tweaked the layout a bit to move the station slightly to the right and moved the flap so it's not under the platforms. The design of the staging tracks has also been changed to sneak in another couple of tracks (by reducing track spacing) and make all tracks reversible. I intend that passenger trains and mineral trains will be fixed rakes, but on the inside line I'm showing a kickback siding to allow some "fiddling" to assemble pick-up goods train to feed/receive traffic to Begbrooke and Marlingford. Some points in the staging are still not very accessible and I'll have another go to see if a different combination would work better, in particular on the right hand side entry into the staging. What I'm intending is that whilst the continuous run is on semi-premanent woodwork, the branch terminus remains on its trestles then it can be moved out of the way for cleaning/maintenance or in even of major derailment. Once again thanks for comments, Jon Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.