Philou

Thanks chaps,

Good ideas. Sorry Harlequin, it look as if this version is likely to be the way to go.

As I have a few months worth of hard labour ahead of me before I can tackle the layout proper, there is time for further thought and tweaking to be considered - so no door closing at the moment. I shall have plenty of questions to ask regarding prototypical pointwork (I made a basic error on my module that I shan't repeat), questions regarding signalling (I have little knowledge in that regard) and perhaps as importantly, ground and shunting signals - I know absolutely nothing about those.

Then there will be wiring to be considered - as I'm going DCC - it is two wires in and two wires out (basically) - but questions will arise - do I break it up anyway into sections? Blocks? I can't remember what the correct term is at the moment . And then electrofrogs - is that difficult? Do motors come with the SPDT switch incorporated (not having PECO ones - something more akin to Cobalt or Tortoise despite the expense). Can you guide me to some appropriate topics or threads?

And then there's stock to run - Brassey and The Stationmaster have been helpful - so thanks for that information too.

Feel free to come back with comments or further ideas and observations.

I shall be back regularly to let you how I'm getting on with the works - and there will be a huge fanfare and much blowing of trumpets when I start in the barn.

Update regarding the stairs - had a bit of a nightmare two days ago, one of the treads pre-made, split along the glued joint. Movement along the grain was stronger than the glued joint and had to be re-done. It's all sorted and in place. Tomorrow, I'm out of the quarter turn and on the home run.

During the week, the scaffolding is arriving and will be erected for me to tackle the old render and re-pointing of the barn frontage. At least a month's work ahead as I can only do about 1m² a day .

Cheers,

Philip

Without wishing to hijack the thread and make it off-topic (again!) - what about A H Bakers on Wellfield Road?

He did Hornby Dublo and Minic ships. I had a bargain (or so I thought at the time) two Hornby Dublo locos - an N2 and Sir Nigel Gresley (LNER blue) with valances - for 7/6d. Both had bust wheels - mazak rot. Re-wheeled and converted to two-rail. What made these a bit special for me was that they had horseshoe magnet motors - and they still work despite their age.

I repainted the A4 but carefully retained the original transfers intact. Hornby of course cheated - motion? What motion? You've got valances, what more do you want?

And I never knew about Terry the Twunts shop, even though I lived just around the corner.

I bet you won't find the same locos in L&B's (to bring it back OT) . (Thank deity I hear some say.)

Cheers,

Philip

Hello chums,

I've had a look at 'Dymented' and toyed around with a very simple station that will fit in the area previously shown in post #72. I have also eased the main running lines and reduced the tightness of the reverse curves. From my perspective I think it looks about right - though the station does need more work as the 'Golden Valley' part of it ran a fair amount mixed traffic trains and it could do with perhaps a goods shed - or at least a small yard with a crane.

I haven't redone the storage area as yet -I'll wait until a more definitive plan has been determined.

Your comments would be appreciated.

Cheers,

Philip

Plans below - oops.

My first 'real' loco came from James Lendon in 1961 - a Hornby Dublo West Country 'Barnstable'. I still have it - took for a spin on the club layout last year. It worked straight away despite not having turned a wheel since 1976. It was a bit smelly - it needs a good servicing as everything had dried out.

I worked in Bud's from 1965 to 1981 on Saturdays (on 16th October, the first Saturday after my 15th birthday) - started downstairs and worked my way upstairs to the railway department - which is where I wanted to be right from the start. Good bloke was Bud. I started at 10/- for the day. It rose quickly to £1 - quadrupled my pocket money!

For those that asked about his arm - at the age of 11, he slipped under a tram while going to the baker's across the road to get some stale cake. He was an excellent photographer despite his handicap. He won the Amateur Photographer of the Year competition of the Daily Herald with his Hasselblad. The picture was of his daughter with an ice-cream in front of a dark-red brick wall. He was also a pioneer in model aircraft - balsa wood and paper tissue type. There was a connection between him and Keil Kraft - but I don't know the details.

To come back on-topic: Peter worked there too and, I in my humble opinion, has become the successor of Bud.

Cheers,

Philip

Hi Philou here,

A bit of blatant publicity for my brother - Peter, the Lord bit of L&B. He rang me yesterday to ask me if I was interested in some new stock that is imminent - maybe in by the time I type this - and I pass it on:

Sir Daniel Gooch is (or should be) available - Class 47 No 47628 by Bachmann in the GWR 150th Anniversary green and is limited to 500 units. Mine's ordered.

Regards,

Philip

Hi Philou here,

@ Leicester North

Are your transition curves intended for those who make their own track? I ask simply as I was led to believe many many years ago, that flexible track will always form a transition between a straight and curve (or curve/curve, or through reverse curves) as you cannot lay a true curve to a straight with flexible, without resorting to distorting the track.

Do your transitions also allow for line speed?

An enquiring mind should like to know.

Cheers,

Philip

Right chaps,

I've had a two minute think - and by no means any final decision being made - it was a comment made by Harlequin in response to the plan at post #72 and now something mentioned by The Stationmaster that caused me to come back:

The plan at post #114 came about as Harlequin mentioned the loss of a landscaped run on the section 'Newport/Hereford'. Indeed, when viewed that way, that was a loss. However, in what has now become #114, the run has been reinstated - but if analysed, that run is in a somewhat deep cutting - as per prototype. Is there really a loss if you could not see the train - unless you were standing up and overlooking it? I wonder.  In plan #72, the landscaped run is on the 'Hereford' side, furthermore it is on rising ground and double track to boot  - so that trains may be more easily observed. I do acknowledge that the eye could be led to goings on at 'Dymented' - but a decent, and uninterrupted, run is there nevertheless.

In turning to 'Dymented': the branches leading thereto are on lower ground and there is no need for a tunnel, that, in my mind, would have looked artificial for reasons that I exposed previously. It does mean that only a single line bridge under the main-running lines need be provided - the absolute minimum height between rail-top and underside is 15' (60mm) - we have 70mm and is therefore perfectly practicable.

Now to the tunnel: Ledbury tunnel as per prototype is not short - I had mentioned in an earlier post, a want to increase its length. In a way, this has been achieved in #72, by my desire to hide the single turnouts leading into the traverser ('Newport/Worcester'). Whilst hiding the two points may lead to increased operational difficulties, it need not be. There are plenty of ways of indicating line occupancy and turnout directions - even CCTV!! It comes back to a point I made in post #114:

"Under OMO, prototypical movements from each station and their respective branches can still be maintained. Trains arriving from 'Worcester' and returning thereto, will need to pick up a tablet in order to enter the single line working. Whether a train actually started from 'Newport' in the prototypical world will not matter for an operator at Ledbury - it is a train movement that will need to be handled in a prototypical manner."

The same will apply whether a train is a through train on the roundy-roundy,  or going back to the storage area. Where belief has to be suspended - if it was not here, it would be somewhere else - is that there are points within Ledbury tunnel where none exist. I am of a view that the tunnel was going to be there, it is there, and therefore one may as well make use of that, rather than create another tunnel in an otherwise acceptable landscaped area over at 'Dymented'.

That is tonight's thought.

Kind regards,

Philip

@ Chimer, thanks for the plan, I'll add something similar to the traverser area.

@ gordon s: Well! I suppose that would solve a fair bit of storage problems - imagine 4 or 5 of those in a fiddle yard! I expect they cost a few pounds too .

@Phil @Chris

Whilst providing a rising gradient out of Pontrilas towards 'Hereford' - it goes only as far as the end of the goods loops - the mainline then falls towards the tunnel. Likewise the line out of Ledbury falls over the viaduct and continues to the tunnel - these maintain the illusion of the prototype. At the same time, the two branches rise out of their respective stations and meet at 'Dymented' (I like that!). The gradients main-line and branch-line are 1:100 and 1:50 respectively. There is a minimum clearance of 70mm - it is just doable.

However, SCARM is limited in that it does not permit the placing of pointwork on gradients (I believe Mixy is looking into this) and therefore there are gains to be made in the setting out of gradients when the layout is under construction.

The only thing I don't like when there is insufficient clearance between the tunnel crown and whatever is above - in this instance 'Dymented' - it looks too artificial. If you think about it, the railway pioneers would have just made a cutting rather than spend money on tunnelling if there was only a few feet between the crown and fresh air (urban situations excepted). It's a point I make at the club where all the youngsters insist on having a tunnel on their modules - it ends up as a long brick built bridge - tunnel with a flat top. If you're going to create a tunnel, at least make it worth while - which brings us conveniently to Ledbury.

I take the point regarding preparing the ground for the eventual doubling of the tunnel - you will be pleased to know that on the ground in true prtotypical manner, the siding alongside the tunnel entrance should be parallel to the mainline, as is the refuge line (possibly a sand drag) on the Worcester side of the tunnel should also be parallel - as per prototype. In passing, along the line between Ledbury and Malvern, there are a number of bores parallel to the main-line due to lines being created and then lifted - so there is precedent for an additional bore if required.

Regarding the traverser, I didn't show too many stabling lines for the sake of clarity - it was easier to paste and copy the turntable that I had already created on the previous iteration of the plan .

Thanks for your input - I await the views of The Stationmaster.

Cheers,

Philip

@Harlequin

Thanks for your rating re: the stairs. It really is a pain in the posterior. There is not one screw - all nails - that have rusted into the wood and when you pull them out, and so comes half the wood due to the woodworm. Nil desperandum.

Philip

Chums,

I have cunning plan version 2 available:

Not a lot has changed. I have reverted to an earlier plan that was in an earlier post #57   . Bearing in mind the more recent comments I have reverted back to have access to the traverser somewhere near Hereford. All trains can originate and terminate at 'Hereford'. The branch lines, Gloucester and Golden Valley have been retained as rumps but do nevertheless meet at an as yet unnamed station - shall we say Dymwent for the moment. This is the orange polygon over the main line to hide the access lines to the traverser. I have opted to leave the pointwork in the open rather than behind any scenic artifacts other than natural cover and if Dymwent develops - albeit a small station with a loop and two sidings (for example) then rural buildings can help scenic wise. I have for the time being retained the turntable for turning steam locos and a few stabling roads (can be used for diesels too). I still haven't put in a head shunt as a stock release road.

Rather than create an additional exit from the traverser and therefore avoiding any duck-unders - risk of coming into contact with the boards AND I'm not getting any younger - I believe there is merit on suspending prototype reality when the layout is in operation - trains leave a station and go 'elsewhere'. If the layout is being run as OMO, on your own you're not really going to be looking much at the train once it has left, other to ensure it enters the pointwork to get to 'Hereford'.

Under OMO, prototypical movements from each station and their respective branches can still be maintained. Trains arriving from Worcester and returning thereto, will need to pick up a tablet in order to enter the single line working. Whether a train actually started from Newport in the prototypical world will not matter for an operator at Ledbury - it is a train movement that will need to be handled in a prototypical manner.

I am minded that this later version, subject to tweaking and some detailing to Dymwent, could give quite some operational interest:

• Branchline movements in either direction of prototypical stock to their respective terminii
• Prototypical main-line movements at each station - notwithstanding the need for the trains to travel in another 'world' on their journey back
• Prototypical movements through Ledbury Tunnel
• Plenty of stock movements to be controlled, accepted and dispatched at the traverser (note to oneself - make one track on the traverser 'cassette' friendly)
• Trains running through landscape between Ledbury and Pontrilas (via Newport/Worcester).

Topographically, Ledbury viaduct is now on a falling grade and a rising grade out of Pontrilas towards Hereford has been maintained, as per prototypes. The only downside, is that both branches rise whereas in reality they fall. Having said that, the branches now act as scenic devices to take the eye away from the non-prototypical junctions into 'Hereford', which is a positive thing.

There we are gentlemen, your reviews are eagerly awaited.

Cheers,

Philip

PS: Manglement is very pleased with the new stairs, despite the very slow progress. Its the quarter-turn wot done it guv, no two steps are the same, brownie points being accumulated by the dozen .

Here are my stairs - practicing my carpentry skills before tackling the barn and the railway framework. I cannot believe it has taken four (yes -4!) days to set up 2 steps. Mind you when I pulled out the old treads and risers not only they were full of worm (dead!) but the stringers had crumbled too - ho hum.

Philip

@gordon,

Thank you for the Templot information - I shall bear that in mind when constructing.

What I call 'box' sections were below your traverser frame - picture No1 post #84.

BTW, nice looking trackwork - did you design that on Templot? I couldn't get on with it with a seemingly endless number of commands , nonetheless, I shall give it another go as I have a number of intermingled points within the goods yard of Ledbury that I should like to fiddle with before any work starts on the layout.

Regards,

Philip

@ gordon, again,

I saw in your photos that you had some interesting box sections as supports - what were they, and did you make them?

Philip

@ gordon

Thanks for the detailed information regarding the traverser. I wonder if a lightweight steel sub-frame, such as that used in studwork might be better. Though having said that, and having used it for partitioning, it probably is subject to flexing and is just too flimsy. I have access to a good table woodworking machine, via a neighbour, that can give me at least very accurate angles and very straight and square timbers.

My layout will be in a barn and despite any best efforts on my part regarding the sealing of the building against the worst of the weather, it will no doubt be subject to some damp and lots of temperature changes .

Thanks too for the heads-up regarding overhang on curves at 45 centres. I was going for 1.0m minimum curves - so I'll check prior to any permanent pinning down of track.

Cheers,

Philip

As an add-on - a question regarding the Hornby Class 28XX 2-8-0 tender loco:

The model I have (bought about 3 years ago whilst stock collecting, and I haven't the catalogue number to hand at the moment) has 'solid' spoked wheels. Is this correct or have I bought a 'pup'? I can't find any photos of any original locos with 'solid' spokes. If it isn't correct, then I shall re-wheel the thing. I think it is Alan Gibson who has the correct diameter wheels. It might be worth doing anyway.

Any guidance or thoughts on the matter - or perhaps someone could guide me to an existing thread on the matter.

Regards,

Philip

@ Phil,

The local club introduced me to the 45mm centres via their 'standard' modules - they are H0 and don't generally have to worry about 'oversize' stock. I've constructed a module (a UK MPD to show off my DCC loco stock) with 45mm centres and it looks quite effective - though there are no curves to worry about overhang. I did trim 4 points to create 2 cross-overs - no problems in matching up. Those who may have thought about it - I'd go for it, but to allow widening in curves - IF necessary.

For those waiting for the revised revised plan - on its way, but my stairs have taken priority at the mo'.

Cheers,

Philip

I like it - down to earth. Oh and by the way - welcome.

Cheers,

Philip

PS: I love the models - Australian possibly ?

I'm using 45mm centres at the moment - in my view it just looks better and IIRC it's more true scale. I'm led to believe the 50mm is to allow for stock over-hang on tighter curves. I shall be setting out my curves very carefully and checking with the longest stock that I have, before committing.

The downside is that it means at crossovers pointwork needs trimming to suit - I'm not going for handbuilt trackwork - there's about 70 points and 155 yards to lay and I don't feel I want to give that aspect of the layout the time - time for me that is running out! Don't get me wrong - I have done it and I was pretty pleased with the results (at the time!), but I wouldn't do it now. Code75 will be enough with which to deal.

@ Brassey, thanks for the  stock and routeing information - does seem convoluted though.

Cheers,

Philip

PS: I'm onto cunning plan  v1.1 but it won't be up until tomorrow - sorry. Stairs got in the way of doing railway stuff today .

@ Mike, Stationmaster,

I forgot to ask: Out of curiosity, what was the routing of trains between the West of England and the North and West? It would seem a very circuitous route. I can see why the GWR would have used their metals through Ledbury rather that go via the Gloucester/Cheltenham way. But WofE via NandW? An enquiring mind wants to know .

Regards,

Philip

@ Harlequin,

Thank you for the revised plan. I'm going to have digest it very slowly and pick out the bones. At first glance, I would say that the reasoning behind the way my two stations are laid out, is that the track alignments leading 'westwards' from each station are aligned correctly - ie; Ledbury towards 'Hereford' swings 'north' and Pontrilas towards 'Hereford' swings 'south'. However, I have to say in the case of the 'eastern' ends of each station - it is not as it is on the ground - both are relatively straight alignments. Nonetheless, I see that 'geographically' the two stations are tied together correctly via 'Hereford'. (I'm using quote marks as compass directions on the layout, as the true directions are completely different as you will have seen on the Adlestrop Atlas.)

I'm not sure how to proceed - choices, choices, decisions, decisions .................

But, hey, thanks for all your thoughts and information so far gentlemen .

Cheers,

Philip

@ Mike, Stationmaster,

Thank you for the detailed information - it came through as I sent my reply to Brassey. It does seem to have been, and perhaps still is, an important line. I do wonder how Ledbury survived at all as many trains on the Birmingham - Hereford (via Worcester) line terminate at Malvern - though there still are a few daily return trains to London (Paddington) via Oxford (plus local services Hereford - Birmingham of course) - hence why I was intending to run HSTs through Ledbury in my model world.

Mike, are you able to advise what LNWR locomotive power might have run through Pontrilas? I simply do not have access to any books relating to the LNWR, though I expect Ebay/Amazon would be my friend. I only ask to have some idea. It would seem from the photographs that I have seen on the web, the passenger trains are hauled by what looks like GWR locos - no freight at all in the views! It ties in with what you were saying regarding the freight and passenger running powers.

Regards,

Philip

Running a King through Pontrilas was on my list of movements too - as I had seen the route availability plans mentioned elsewhere.

@ Brassey

Thanks or the information regarding train movements. I had an idea that they must have been LNWR as (unless I have remembered incorrectly) Merthyr Tydfil was served by both LNWR and the GWR (might have been the TVR). The LNWR by dint of running powers had a goods depot in Cardiff. There is a 1924 photograph of an 0-6-2T Webb Coal Tank taking on coal at the Rhymney Railway shed at Cardiff Docks. (Railways of Cardiff by Laurence Waters). I bought one on the strength of the picture - hadn't even crossed my mind regarding stock movements on the layout - funny how things work out.

Cheers,

Philip

@ gordon s,

Hi and wowser,

Yes please - if you could be so kind as to give me some insight as to how you constructed it. My carpentry skills are pants - but I'm willing to learn. Can you let me know what your track centres are? It looks very interesting and about the size that is being considered for my layout.

Cheers,

Philip

@ Chris,

Prototypical train movements hadn't been foremost in my mind when I started the topic - I was asking really if I was making the best of the opportunity of the yuuuuge space at my disposal and things just evolved.

I expect it's a hangover from when I were a lad and the layout I never finished - though I did have a 27' 1" x 7' 6" in an attic at home that I built in around 1965. Terminus (full size as per CJ Freezer's plan on another thread) to fiddle yard, plus branch-line, plus external double track roundy roundy. 2ft minimum radius, all on Peco Streamline. Ballasted, track colour oh and the wiring, that was a nightmare - but all soldered (from underneath). I enjoyed that. Cab control with 5 Codars (remember them?). I gave it up for three reasons: car, women and the fact that my father (bless him) loved running things at full tilt on the roundy roundy and burnt out 4 of my 5 Codars (I have the refugee with me still). They were only about 4 months old. At that point, having put every penny that I earned working in a model shop (hence the track was discounted), I gave up in disgust and left him with it. He ran it quite happily with my old H&M Duette after that. Such is life.

So, coming back OT:

So, am I using the space to its advantage - I think so. As Harlequin rightly pointed out when I titivated it following suggestions made - you can do TOO much. It's now just a question of getting the balance right and IF a bit of prototypical stock movement can be achieved, so much the better. It isn't the target - had it been so - I would have gone for a one station to double ended fiddle yard with perhaps a branch (why am I thinking Hereford all of a sudden ......... ).

Philip

PS: @ Chris: Have another look at the bottom layout in my post #66 if you haven't seen it. Was this perhaps the sort of thing of no compromise? It could have been made so that trains from one station did not necessarily call at the next station. A decent fiddle yard would have had to be included - I didn't get that far as I considered I was having visions of grandeur (hallucinations more like!).

Edited for the PS.