dpaws

Don't know that parcels units did, but I believe theres a picture of a single car unit with milk tanker (s) behind in a very early (maybe even the first) edition of 'Traction' magazine. I believe the location was in the Saltash area...

 

HTH

 

Disgusting of Market Harborough

In the early 60's when branch lines were struggling to turn a profit I'm sure many unconventional movements took place that  would economise on movements. 

http://glostransporthistory.visit-gloucestershire.co.uk/ROD_Terminal%201_Rolling%20Stock_GWR%20railcar..html

In this vein this site mentions #18 running with mail despite being fitted with passenger seating. Maybe the 128's arrival in '59 was simply too late to coincide with single milk tanker movements between remote branchline stations?

I'm more confident in seeing a horse box in tow; CCTs and utility vans are mentioned on several sites. How these were used I'd be interested to know - would they be dropped off at a station along the branch and then pick up the empty on a return leg much later in the day? Sorta makes sense to me.

I guess taking single wagons for private owners along the line was different, probably something to do with braking system limitations? Or maybe there would be sufficient private owner traffic to warrant a slow stopping goods. 

I'd like to know if they'd likely be used to tow a container conflat A... (I've a few of those lurking in a stock box somewhere!) It is a movement that would make economic sense...

I hadn't realised that single railcars coupled to other rolling stock, most convenient! It will look quite strange shunting a horse box into the bay siding with a parcels railcar; I wonder if they ever coupled to milk tankers?

What a find! Great photo with lots of interesting historical details.

Lovely isn't it? The little terrier in the arms of the chap sat on the bow and the plank suspended on those rocks of coal between the boat and the wagon to raise the working height - they must have been strong lads, there's about 20 tonnes worth on a loaded narrowboat!

The Bowler hat was a symbol of authority, so I'm guessing the gang's foreman had turned up for the event, circa 1900, so quite an event I'm sure...

The same period would have been too early for motor driven boats, so it would have been horse-drawn with extra crew taken on to "leggit" through the tunnels while the horse was led over the top of the hill - not an easy life, for either! Would be really nice to model that boat appearing from the deep gloom of a tunnel with a pair of leggers braced across the bow...

Sometimes stumbling across a photo can unlock the imagination...

[link]29481[linkphoto]29481[/linkphoto][/link]

A canal wharf that dates back to the 1920's period when the railways were booming. My model's early 1960's so already in decline; the station now sees only single railcar passenger traffic, the goods shed now taken over by the engineering dept with the station's ex-pilot's stabling facilities retained for it's use. The bay platform now handles CCT's and horse boxes as a goods platform. The wharf is still in service but run down with the canal's end overgrown through disuse, not unlike in the photo I guess! 

The scenario would appear to be suitable for double-sided viewing, I'll have a look at the CAD to see if it would really work before I disregard a back-scene all together.

The red line indicates the through branch-line routing;  the associated turnouts' radii have been increased accordingly, now min. 1350mm. The drop-down wing extensions permit a Locolift to be used easily at either end, allowing a 30cm through-train length in it's standard form. 

The proposed traverser would replace the western end drop-down and could employ a precision liner stage slide, in conjunction with a 30cm Locolift once again... 

Happy days ahead!

Home at last with time to play contemplate the design - and problems already - sadly the plan above does look too "set-track" in real life too, only made worse I think by the "from above" perspective.

So... back to the original 4x1 baseboard footprint and some component shuffling...

...which was looking quite promising until it came to the traverser alignment. With the traverser at full travel a gap would appear beyond the top entry rail, something I particularly wanted to avoid. I prefer a false scenic rail so as not to distract the viewer's eye towards the cheating going on back-scene. So... more track elements on order! I want to experiment with this; the sweeping geometry certainly can't be confused with set-track! In fact, the large radius turnout in the foreground is flexible, and will operate quite happily with a subtle radius applied to please the eye. My Y3 sentinel can sneak around the big turnout, just, but it's my intention to have a draw bridge type extension leading to a 30cm LocoLift off-scene stage right.

Oh, in other news... DCC! My Sutton Works 22 arrived, is truly glorious and most worthy of sound one day so that decided it - I've ordered my first DCC controller, a NCE Twin. To keep it all super simple the point switching will be stand alone switched manually with Bulldogs with the frogs wired to a Hex Juicer; https://www.coastaldcc.co.uk/products/tamvalley/hex-frog-juicer-universal - one of modelling's rare no-brainers!

Can't wait for the post to arrive!

I think this is where we're at... the track plan's holding up to various scenic ideas.

I wonder how modular the shed and platform area could be - interchangeable with a loco shed maybe for those "need to play with engines" sorta days?

The long siding clearly serves the main building, that's fine as is regardless of the scene. In loco mode the platform could become a coaling stage with coal wagons feeding the pile from the other side. Could do with an inspection pit prior to the shed - maybe a grating over a pit would pass for a goods shed, washing down drainage etc?

Certainly if the shed was a dairy then the overhead wagon cleaning spray bars running along the platform edge would work with drainage underneath - and then urns to be loaded onto wagons from the platform beyond?

I really do need to get back to my work!!

It will be interesting to see how your finished model compares to your visuals.

Marlyn

Indeed it will Marlyn - will start with a Tim Horn baseboard and see where it all leads to.... at least the ballasting in real life will be easier to work on than ballasting track in 3D!!!

What 3D CAD program do you use for your visuals? I particularly like the black toned sketches on the textured background. I have only used 2D creative software for my professional work and still play with it now I am retired.

 

Marlyn

Hi Marlyn - Thanks for your interest - I'm using Rhino 3D for Mac, in conjunction with 3D models available on line for rolling stock etc - it's a good package but vastly over-spec'd for these simple sketches. Yes, I love that "artistic sketch" rendering too - with it I feel very Iain Rice!!

All well worthwhile I feel - I wouldn't have tried a shed positioned there otherwise and yet appears to suit the scenario very well.... 

So, back-scene composition left to ponder and of course the dreaded wiring..... push-rods in tubes, servos and a smart mimic panel or Z21 DCC and the iPad? Hmmm...

Not to be taken the wrong way   but I'm somewhat old school and like the feel of knobs!!! 

Figured I could do better; a thought which happily coincided with 3 days downtime offshore on a tanker so no time wasted!!!

I suppose "the shed" springs to mind, but any shed would do it - as a goods shed (as shown), works maintenance works, a small loco shed (0-6-0T), a brewery, a dairy.... 

In the south east corner, under the canopy there are actually a couple of conflats sat buffer to buffer, 14cm overall which would be the length of a sector plate should someone go down that path one day. For me I'm favouring a trimmed back diamond crossing offering an extra inch of travel in either direction until the siding's end. The canopy doesn't suggest a through route - though replace it with an overhead depot crane and you'd have both your disguise and an excuse for through traffic on that track.

Front of stage left would be set up for photographs of the loco sat at a platform's end having a drink whilst the fireman tours the running gear with a pot of grease in hand... Just the type of cameo that's a pleasure to show one's finest loco in... oh, with driver supping tea as mentioned previously!!! The platform end also indicates the main station lies to the west of scene, and the scale of the good's shed is that of a busy branch-line if not a small junction... tanks engines fit just perfectly with the occasional tendered 2MT Ivatt arriving with the afternoon goods....

I do like the long sidings despite the limited space available - real sidings are very rarely micro-typical stubby!

Errrr  - anyone out there remember how to wire up for DC ? ? ?

A "sketch" rendering - looks very promising - and I do feel that urge to peer over the wall!

My work has been keeping me away from home so consequently no change for a bit of modelling... until I remembered that I still had a 3D CAD package installed. 

Here a couple of views - I rather like the idea that the two school boys that will be peering over the wall will get a better view than you can - it used to be like that in my day! 

The restricted view also means that things moving will be heard, but you can't see them - again, it used to be like that in my day! 

The drawbridge extension will be pretty much covered by a curved back-scene, and that's next on the list of things to do...

The canopy hanging off the retaining wall (disguising the SE corner sector plate could suggest a coal merchant trading underneath in the goods yard running off to the east. There were coal merchants everywhere!

Well thank you all for the kind comments and interest - in reality sadly my posts are quite selfish as somehow reading my own words back creates a different perspective and keeps me "on track"; the autistic mind is a wonderland for conceptual thinking! It's likely to be two forward and one back as it slowly starts to take shape. Oh, speaking of one backs... my experiment with the Scotch - the surface tack is apparently sufficient to remove the sleepers from set-track unless extreme care is taken. Lengths of flexi or hand-built wouldn't survive a repositioning. I'm quite content with the formation of turnouts and track (it's in the post) but making sense of why it's all there - converting geometry into believable is the hardest challenge as I'm completely devoid of Lunn / Nevard / Rice genius. 

I print out the sketches full size, mock up the scene with card and rolling stock and then consume tea whilst lost in contemplation. One particular challenge is viewing and operating from the same side, but still retaining sufficient on view to scratch my photography itch. In the last days I've changed the back for the front, which will mean that the viewing "letter box" wouldn't start until some 80mm ish above the trackbed. Again, one of many versions no doubt; how does the roadway at the rear work being on the far side of the platform "through" line? More tea and chin stroking required!

In the raised SW corner I've flirted with either a townscape or a ground level cameo that could well be a excuse to stand a loco or two, complete with tea swigging crews, I do like that idea! The peek-a boo stage entries and exits takes me back to days watching Kettering's station throat from a bridge over the main lines during family visits to musty relatives. In general I do enjoy layouts that feed a curiosity and cause you to peek over and around things to discover delightful little cameos. With so little space available I feel it best to strictly control one's perspective through gaps between buildings etc 

 Sometimes 3 locos can be seen

I know where you're coming from - after years dabbling with N gauge the rodding on modern OO locos is a joy to behold!

A while back I mocked-up with a suburban stabling point / shunter's yard scene and it worked quite well albeit with a more restricted operating potential. DCC sound would dramatically increase the intensity of the scene (big wow!) but on a micro layout I always worry about what happens when the loco leaves "the scene" only seconds later, inevitably followed by an abrupt and eery silence... 

Yes, it includes the steps. The loading Bay would be quite a bit further out, but I'd probably do that a bit differently anyway.

 

 

Shapeways are on the ball - I ordered the print on Saturday around noon; I got an email from them less than 24 hours later to say it had been checked, approved, printed, and was on it's way to me already! Should arrive tomorrow, or Wednesday at the latest.

 

JRB

My compliments! The 3D model looks amazing with the primer on it, almost too clean, but after the clean up the mouldings are surprisingly good - how many fills do you thing you'll get from each mould?

Will you be springing up onlne somewhere and offering both versions for sale?

A few more hours pondering and I'm missing the original plan's "through running" idea with maybe a branch line railbus breaking up the shunting movements. A loco-lift type cassette system at either end would offer plenty of variation, supported either by a draw-bridge type arrangement cut out of the end panel, or a telescopic extending support either end - I've seen this done on a micro layout site somewhere online and it looks to be a very neat solution. Both offer the original plan's storage footprint which is the most important consideration.

An additional benefit is that the train length can increase, with an east-bound departure's loco running onto the loco-lift, leaving the wagons or coach on the traverser for re-distribution.

In the foreground a bay/good's dock would offer the most feasible cameo potential; a yard crane, pick-up vehicles, a weighbridge etc.

Sadly a through branch-line station is unlikely to have a shunter assigned to it with the need for a little shed, which is unfortunate because a loco at rest alongside a coaling stage in the foreground is enough to provide quire a distraction to the eye... we'll see...

A pack of Tillig Elite HO arrived in the post and it has raised some issues. The sleeper spacing is quite noticeably closer than Peco's new bullhead or my OO-SF. Whilst flexi could be re-spaced the turnouts would be impossible. I think for the foreground siding I'll feather in the pitch variation, so the tight sleepering on the (vii) turnout would transition into more prototypical spacing in the direct foreground.

Otherwise it looks very nice pre-weathered. I'll remove the conventional fishplates and replace them with the hand built track type, fiddly though that job will be, I'm sure. For trackbed I'm experimenting with Scotch Insulation Putty tape. It has only a mild tack to the surface but it has an incredible grab to both the board and the sleepers, enough on it's own to hold a subtle curve in a piece of set track. The sleeper spacing is also an issue at the joins as the two end sleepers are noticeably closer than the regular spacing, so some additional trimming back will be required.

It's almost time to take the plunge and order up a full baseboard kit from Tim Horn, but first I need to model it in CAD so he can see visual my specific requirements; to this end I do wish that the Railmodeller Pro software could export the 3D rendered track-plan as a CAD compatible object.

I couldn't leave this one alone and succumbed to a double slip but kept the turntable idea alive. The NW corner is just begging for a sector plate with it's 15° approach angle. The 140mm deck NOCH HO model could be the best analogue solution with the body cut down to fit in the space.

The overall size of the stack pictured is 134 x 67 x 29mm, with a material volume of 64.58mm2. Cost for that from Shapeways in FUD is around £90, without any discount codes.

 

JRB

I feared as much... I guess you'd save a tiny amount by scaling it down to HO for a back-scene to force perspective a little - but obviously to reproduce your full building puts it into commissioned scatch-build territory.  Despite this I'm still sorta tempted! 

Does the 29mm include the steps - and how much further out from the steps would you expect the rail-side edge of a loading bay?

It's been a while, but I've finally got somewhere with the warehouse/buildings on the layout. By that, I don't mean I've actually made anything physical yet, but I have made some progress...

 

To clarify - I'm getting these printed in FUD from Shapeways; it's not cheap by any means, but I want the masters to be as clean & crisp as possible. The resolution of cheaper home printers isn't really suitable for this, I don't think. I've bundled the modules together for printing to keep the costs down:

 

ModuleStack02PTP.jpg

 

Even so, just for these few modules the cost (before discounts/voucher codes, anyway) is getting towards the cost of a small shunting loco!

 

 

JRB

I'm curious - what are the dimensions overall, and what's the cost of printing a complete "set"? Much obliged...

I stumbled across David Hyde’s excellent Youtube videos about authentic goods operations on his beautiful “Deresley” layout. (Start here and indulge yourself!)

I reached for the sketchpad and doodled options that could be sufficiently compact and portable to take on board our canal boat to enjoy when the Boss has got the soaps on the box. So far not so bad I think! Lots of operating potential despite the limitations... good potential too to "dock" the layout onto a larger permanent layout at home one day...

I’ve used Tillig’s Elite HO Code 83 exclusively for the plan which is roughly 4' x 1' (1295mm x 300mm as shown); a wider board would facilitate greater depth to the foreground for enhanched realism. Whilst the trackwork "on stage" is quite dense, the storage is minimal which should help prevent crowding the scene. As the mock-up shows, the layout can hold a fair bit of stock albeit with the majority hidden from view. The tightest radius is 866mm from the "EW1" straight turnouts. The double track traverser would be home-made, based on a linear screw slide that has a 200mm travel. This is sufficient at full deflection to present the traverser’s northern road beyond the baseboard boundary for easy stock handling, (like a CD player drawer)

The platform track terminates at 90° to the western boundary to allow a mirror to portray a convincing image of the world beyond, assisted by the curved platform face.  A single siding serves the local good’s yard and accommodates 3x conflat wagons but further private sidings are suggested beyond the road over bridge on the eastern boundary. Through running is achieved between a traverser road and the hidden head-shunt in the north-west corner. DMUs, railcars, light engine workings (also with a single wagon; 08+horse box, 45XX+shunter's wagon, 46XX+milk tanker etc.) can all be accommodated as all will fit the traverser tracks which are Tillig Elite #85118  (228mm long). By using a Peco Loco-lift placed over the traverser’s receiving road the layout can accommodate longer movements; the inbound loco can be lifted off leaving the stock on the traverser for hiding "back-stage”.

Whilst my first instinct for location was a sleepy village GWR branch station, the model could offer further interest with interchangeable scenic sections serving the platform road. I’ve also doodled a variation with a depot workshop that’s open-backed and served by a turntable (way too big, I know!). The single siding could now hold permanent way wagons or Department Loco stabling? 

BTW, for lots of turntable, sector plate and traverser options this company seems to be one the best kept secret in micro layouts; a tad costly mind but… http://www.hapo-bahn.de/

I’ll away, brew up and doodle some more - meanwhile I hope your own sketchpads are never far away!

Actually my experience is that, whenever there is a discussion involving trap points, you pop up to insist that P-way call them catch points. I have not noticed the SM calling traps catch points, GWR or not. The Op was asking where to put them which is an operating/signalling issue not a P-way issue.

Regards

 A constructive contribution to the thread would be most welcome...

So you could argue that if these things are bullhead, they are catch points. If they are flat-bottom they are trap points.

I do like your way of thinking... 

It looks massively over complicated for the GWR.  Their final branch stations had 4 points only.   Have you built it yet?   If not run your finger along where shunting moves will take place.

The E - C headshunt arrangement is too short for anything meaningful and the G pointwork very over complicated if it faces a mineral branch not the west of england main line.

Most of the signals would be off stage, most of the trap points, maybe even a sand drag stage left off stage, the signal box would need to be the other end of the station for token purposes so quite how the sidings would be worked is debatable, ground frame released from box?

I was operating (trying to make it work electrically actually) a branch terminus at the weekend and the kick back sidings are just a pain. A shunt takes for ever and is soooooo boring.

Much better to forget kick backs and stick with simple and concentrate on getting the incoming wagons in the outgoing out and the part emptied/ loaded/ waiting for loads/ cripples spotted where required

Thanks for your comments David, though I feel you haven't understood - G doesn't exist, it's a Faller sector plate. E-C accommodates the 2-6-2 that I want it to, or a Pug with a couple of milk tankers... Nothing more is needed, goods traffic is sourced from mixed traffic formations only (ignoring the hypothetical mineral through goods traffic....). 

The challenge is a self-contained 4'x1' cameo that (eventually) will be a centerpiece on our canal boat where I hope friends will enjoy the cameo as 3D art as much as they will enjoy the Inglenook type shunting challenges - it's an 0-6-0 and one wagon at a time sorta scene, slowly slowly and in minimum space, just like all things on the canal!

Wow! Thank you so much Mike, very informative - and I really appreciate your patience to explain the scene overall all at my level, the working practices and consequences of the incoming rationalisation - hats off to you. I do find it all so interesting; another world that sadly seems to have disappeared so rapidly.

Thanks too Stephen, the plan looks good - looking forward to everything

The layout definitely comes across as rather 'busy' but he key point (sorry) is that there is only the one passenger line (h) and the passenger trains arrive from and depart towards the east.  So it is the only line that needs any sort of trap protection - everything else is effectively a siding or, in the case of (d) a Goods Line.   Therefore a passenger train terminating/reversing at the platform has to be protected from errant movements of engines or vehicles - simple as that.  And that protection can be achieved without using any trap points at all as the turnout from line h to line g would lie normal towards g thereby immediately diverting any errant movement from the west away from the platform line and towards line g.

 

I am going to assume there are no long or steep gradients because if there were we might also need to think about the connection from line h into line f but in any case if signalbox worked it would lie normal for the route shown in green thus providing a second trap and useful for errant moves from the quarry.

 

There would need to be a stop signal at the end of the platform to protect the point (i.e. to stop passenger trains/running round engines from running through it and i would assume a ground signal reading through it once set for an engine to run round although it might even be a slotted joint (i.e. it is sprung to lie in a particular direction and the running round engine would simply trail through it.  But we're now leaping a bit ahead of the original question and the very simple answer to it.

Many thanks indeed Mike, and I even understood all of that!

I think I've been immersed in risk assessments for too long and have become over-protective of everything - if it's only the passenger trains that need protection then that makes it a whole lot simpler! (You're perfectly correct in assuming that gradients are not present.) 

It is, as you implied, an over-indulgence in complex trackwork for such a cramped space - the same but spread over twice the length would be preferable, I concede. But I value turnout formations as artwork, and commissioned hand-made trackwork is somewhat of a selfish indulgence.... To be fair, once the buildings etc are in place and the view is restricted through the proscenium arch the impression is far more favourable than the over-head view suggests. Initial "peekaboo" shots with the camera lens are quite favourable, though not in Nevard's league for sure... not yet...

Now, you mentioned a signal box... which of the turnouts would be under the control of a signal box, and which would be controlled with local ground frames?

I assume the single slip tie bars would be linked to a ground-frame, the three-way and the turnout bottom left would be controlled by the signal box and the platform end turnout would be sprung (very neat!) with a ground-frame over-ride to permit a movement from the lower loop into the platform rather than the default routing to (g)?

Solely out of interest, if there was a passenger service (h) to (d) and beyond then... the stop signal and ground signal at the platform end would be replaced by a starter signal and a shunt ahead signal respectively, with a trap inserted on the green line before the bottom left hand turnout to protect the passenger line?

Thanks again, very much obliged 

Duplicate thread - please delete

I not sure whether this is the right thread for this - maybe http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/forum/35-permanent-way-signalling-infrastructure/ would be better as I am not sure how many of the engineers watch this one.  Here's a quick starter for 10.

 

Firstly they ain't catch points - I think you mean traps.  Catches catch run away stock at the bottom of slopes.

 

Secondly the purpose of a trap is to protect passenger movements from run away goods stock - forgot to put the brakes on? - or movements which might clash with passenger traffic.  So many of your suggestions might be less than necessary.

 

Proper answers from the experts might require some explanation of HOW this layout is intended to operate.  

 

Is platform 3 a dead end. To the west there's only a mineral line, to the east joins it the branch-line, from where the trains arrive.

 

Why do you need a l/h point off the passenger line d-h to g?  To serve (g), but I feel that you haven't compared the two diagrams - (g) and it's theoretical trap don't exist, but it creates the reason for me to shunt say a horse box van from the platform to the bay siding (g), after which the hand of God comes into play... 

 

I don't think you need a trap from the platform onto the main line near d or at the end of the platform. Platform end maybe not, as (g) should be trapped, but close to (d) for me yes, to protect the through goods route?

 

Since the line c-e goes nowhere near the main/passenger line then no trap is needed.  Ahhh, I was protecting the crossing as there's a restricted view on the approach

 

IF d-f is a main (passenger) line then the traps a-f and b-f are needed.  Possibly not if this is a goods only line? No, quarry only, but as a through traffic route shouldn't that be protected?

 

So the experts out there will help - but give a bit more detail to help them first.

You're perfectly correct, traps, my bad. I'm learning, slowly...