Castle Aching

[Hroth]

6 minutes ago, Edwardian said:

 

Too true!

 

 

 

 

I looked up "Amish" in the Uxbridge English Dictionary, Apparently it means "a bit like Amy"

 

You're having a new sceptic* tank too???

 

* Family name for the devices...

[jcredfer]

Minehead has a working TT, with viewing areas around it, probably best seen in Google Street View.  It isn't the original, which was removed by BR [1967], when diesel took over from Steam.  It's a bit larger than the one you are thinking of [at 65 ft], but similar in several other respects.  It was obtained from Pwllheli and extended to it's current size, when fitted, in 2008. 

 

It is also, very shallow and temptingly, heaved round by hand.....

 

Your YouTube appetiser...   

 

 

 

Enjoy.

 

Julian

PS.  Nice shed.

[monkeysarefun]

3 hours ago, Edwardian said:

 

 

 

 

 

 

The nice things you can have when you don't live with  white ants and white cockatoos..

[Regularity]

18 minutes ago, monkeysarefun said:

The nice things you can have when you don't live with  white ants and white cockatoos.

I heard of many euphemisms for “‘er indoors”, but those are new ones on me!

[Caley Jim]

50 minutes ago, monkeysarefun said:

The nice things you can have when you don't live with  white ants and white cockatoos..

I have a friend who has a (wooden) 

holiday chalet in Halls Gap, Vic. He has had to have the lower few feet of the walls and verandah posts clad in metal to stop the cockies destroying them! 

Jim 

[Adam88]

4 hours ago, Edwardian said:

 

Too true!

 

 

 

 

I looked up "Amish" in the Uxbridge English Dictionary, Apparently it means "a bit like Amy"

 

I can tell that Joseph Paxton didn't give't any sort of inspiration here.

 

[uax6]

~Now I maybe wrong, but I was under the impression that the BoT was against having 3-way points on the running line, presumably because it was difficult to get a facing point lock on one. Do you actually mean a tandem point, which the BoT were happy with....

 

Andy G

 

[Compound2632]

5 hours ago, Edwardian said:

 

Is that your Tardis in the background? First stop, Swindon wagon paintshop in 1902, please!

[Edwardian]

33 minutes ago, Adam88 said:

 

I can tell that Joseph Paxton didn't give't any sort of inspiration here.

 

 

Indeed. They forgot the windows! They say they can come back to fit them; 2-planks depth near the top.

 

14 minutes ago, uax6 said:

~Now I maybe wrong, but I was under the impression that the BoT was against having 3-way points on the running line, presumably because it was difficult to get a facing point lock on one. Do you actually mean a tandem point, which the BoT were happy with....

 

Andy G

 

 

Kemp Town?

 

But if not common, and frowned upon, perhaps best avoided.

[Welchester]

6 hours ago, Hroth said:

 

I wonder how AJ2 is coming along, I picture it as an Amish-style Barn Raising, like the scene in "Witness"!

 

 

 

 

5 hours ago, Edwardian said:

 

I looked up "Amish" in the Uxbridge English Dictionary, Apparently it means "a bit like Amy"

 

I thought they were two novelists: father and son Kingsley and Martin.

[Regularity]

57 minutes ago, Welchester said:

 

 

I thought they were two novelists: father and son Kingsley and Martin.

I knew something was amiss…

[Caley Jim]

4 hours ago, Edwardian said:

But if not common, and frowned upon, perhaps best avoided.

Not a three way, but there is a tandem pair of facing points as trains emerge from the east end of the North bore of the Mound Tunnel on the approach to Waverley Station from the west. You can just about make it out on Google maps satalite view. 

Edit to add that a three way has both sets of switches at the same place, whereas a tandem has the second set forward of the first set. 

 

Jim

Edited June 24, 2022 by Caley Jim
Change 'North end' to 'North bore'

[Donw]

The tandem turnout normally have the second set of point blades beyond the heel point of the first so there is no interaction between the  two sets of blades.

 

Threeways originally had the blades tips in line  however to improve things the newer designs had  one of the point blades of each pair longer than the others so that the tips on each side of the turnout were staggered.  

 

Don

[Schooner]

20 hours ago, Edwardian said:

It would be good to see it in the context of the complete plan.

 

Notes:

The below may or may not be welcome. Presented here not as the answer but as a conversation stater, as per :) There are still many fudges to sort out...

• CA unchanged from pencil sketch really. It exists, it works, it'll be grand :) We've floated the idea of a headshunt at CA but I don't think one is required, WTT depending...
• Achingham has reverted to headshunt access from the platform road. Aesthetic choice really, not sure there's much in it, or that it much matters! Using a long Y for the platform dock turnout smoothed the approach curve and allowed the platform to be lengthened to about 6', if desired. 
• The through cassette yard might need another look once cassette type is decided upon. If something like the DCC MPD, which can be placed on top of ballasted track, then there might be scope to scenically develop 'inside the fence' at least. Shown is a 4'6" lie-by loop with 1' (loco) spurs at either end... Just a thought. I wouldn't expect it to be anything other than a storage/staging area, it's still a cassette yard after all, but it would allow the main line run to look better for longer. Opened up the space for cassette-switching.
• BM currently sports two sidings in a bog standard goods yard, rather than the little coal yard*. The idea of the twin sidings is a) moar storage! b) shows BM as the most significant place on the modeled network (which I think is correct?) and c) it places the operator clearly within the goods yard, hopefully excusing the proximity of the shed to the baseboard edge. There is full cart access to both sidings but only one side is in the modeled world, as it were. Between siding and wall (measured at the "Goods" label) is >200mm wide as shown, so there's lots of room for stores, workshops, offices etc if desired. There is also the small matter of three link couplings, access for which needs considered, here and elsewhere...
• The BM cattle dock siding holds about four cattle trucks clear of the turnout, or eight trucks clear of the slip. The loading dock could take a further five wagons whilst leaving the slip clear. Enough?
• As train and platform lengths have been mentioned, might was well list the rough usable lengths** them to see if they suit:
  • CA:  Main 1500mm/59", Dock 600mm/25"
  • AM: Main 1800mm/70", Dock (Bay?!) 950mm/37", Headshunt 1000mm/39"
  • BM: Main 1900mm/74". Branch 1200mm/47", Dock 400mm/15", Goods Loop 1250mm/49", LH Headshunt 700mm/27", RH 'Headshunt' 1050mm/41"

Should be enough for a <1400mm/55" train to look about right...? 

 

*I had in mind sorting (NMR?) coal trains here, for coal agents along the line and the Achingham Gas Works...but looking at the WNR route map on the opening post, this isn't a thing.

** Leaving pointwork clear by 90mm. All lengths rounded down at every opportunity, so likely to be exceeded in reality.

 

• General note. All building footprints shown on the plan are massive. Eg the BM goods shed footprint is longer than 

(picking a fairly random example from a Google search) and half as wide again; the adjacent loading docks are c.80mm wide vs the c.60mm they 'should' be. Partly being generous with intent, partly rough and ready, partly roofs in SCARM having enormous eaves! Strong combo. Once the plan settles, and if suitable prototypes/dimensions are suggested, I'm very happy to go through the stations and adjust the plan to match. Then we can all get a better sense of whether the scenes work and if whole thing hangs together or not.

 

20 hours ago, Edwardian said:

how would the yard be worked? 

Not to say this is correct, but envisaged is something like:

• Goods train received in loop (facing access from all running lines shown - overkill or handy?)
• Loco runs round as req. then sets train into the RH (as we look at the plan) 'headshunt' (actually storage siding)*
• BM cut shunted as required using LH headshunt, from which yard sidings, shed and dock/crane are all accessible**
• Outbound wagons added to train
• Train backed into the loop, loco runs round as req.
• Goods train departs loop
• Shorter/BM-only trains can work entirely from the loop, without having to use the RH 'headshunt', which could be used to hold another train etc. 
• Use of a station pilot could simplify/complicate matters as desired :) Dedicated cattle trains (if they're a thing?) could work from the branch platform, perhaps.

 

*So ideally the BM portion to be marshalled at the rear of Up (South-bound, towards through cassette yard) trains, and front of Down (Northbound, toward terminus cassette yard) trains

**It might be a bit of a pain that there's no direct access between cattle/loading dock and goods loop or headshunts, but the moves are simple, if long, using the running lines. I hope this keeps shunting the dock on the interesting side of tedious busywork, but that balance lies with James really. The cheeky little loop on the left of the station as we look at the plan (RH for operator, North for West Norfolk Geographers) may come in handy at busy times...

 

20 hours ago, Edwardian said:

explain all this

Route A:

Simple, functional. Looks a bit off to me because of the c.3' (about an average train length?) of apparent wrong line running.

 

vs. Route B:

Less simple, equally functionally. It looks better to my eye.

 

'Route C' (to maintain a theme) is a simplification which has just occured to me:

Which is Route B with the facing connection to the Up platform and Goods Loop removed. Simplest, prettiest, least functional.

 

Down goods trains might have to take one of the branch lines, then set back into the loop, then shunt; or work from the branch platform, perhaps? Or BM is only served by Up goods traffic, with a serving yard on each branch? Can't check the route map atm to see if that's viable or not.

 

 

10 hours ago, Edwardian said:

 

But if not common, and frowned upon, perhaps best avoided.

Roger

 

...?

 

Sorry about all the slips too. Doesn't look right at all, but I've yet to find a way to avoid using them. Once the plan settles down a bit, perhaps it'll be worth a think about any areas which could benefit from bespoke pointwork...

 

19 hours ago, Donw said:

 

Achingham  I would have the mileage siding running alongside the Malting fence to open up the yard area and you could have wagons being unloaded/loaded from carts. It would make the access to the GS look better

 

In general I agree with all the above. Indeed, it was how I started - a textbook Long Back Siding, with the mileage siding hard up against the Maltings siding.

 

Then I looked at the acreage between mileage siding and shed road (over 13") and realised there was plenty of room to run the siding down the middle of that space. This doubles (I thought) the operational, scenic and modeling opportunities at no cost, but it'll be easy enough to have a look at track-laying time and decide then!

 

 

Sorry, that must've been an awful post to follow. Did it make any sense?!

 

Night all,

 

Sch

Edited June 25, 2022 by Schooner
Errerz

[monkeysarefun]

16 hours ago, Hroth said:

 

You're having a new sceptic* tank too???

 

* Family name for the devices...

The blue thing that looks like a police phone box? That'd make it a TURDIS.

[Donw]

The main issue with the track shown yellow is prototypical rather than model. A train approaching BM would require the yellow track to be clear with the points locked to provide the clear track past the home signal. This would mean no train could depart heading away while a train was approaching.  IN model form this would not be an issue. We have no need of a 440 yard clearing beyond the home signal. Our trains stop much quicker and overrun would not be serious although it might damage some paintwork on your pride and joy. So the departure can take place and either the track will be clear by the time the other arrives or it can be held at the home signal.

So how close to prototypical operation do you want to get?

 

Don

[Edwardian]

11 minutes ago, Donw said:

The main issue with the track shown yellow is prototypical rather than model. A train approaching BM would require the yellow track to be clear with the points locked to provide the clear track past the home signal. This would mean no train could depart heading away while a train was approaching. 

 

 

I will literally have to run trains back and forth over these plans in my mind's eye to understand what Schooner has drawn and what you have said. I will get there!

 

11 minutes ago, Donw said:

IN model form this would not be an issue. We have no need of a 440 yard clearing beyond the home signal. Our trains stop much quicker and overrun would not be serious although it might damage some paintwork on your pride and joy. So the departure can take place and either the track will be clear by the time the other arrives or it can be held at the home signal.

So how close to prototypical operation do you want to get?

 

Don

 

As close as practically possible.

 

It behoves any model railway with any pretensions to accuracy to be so. If anything, that imperative is heightened in the case of a freelance line!

[Schooner]

Sorry, you've got plenty on as it is @Edwardian...but... :)

 

Checking into RMWeb for any updates just now, I noticed that the first tag for Castle Aching/the WNR is 'Light Railway'.

 

Neither AM nor BM feel very light railway in the current plan. BM I think I quite like as it - it's a busy junction station and I think has that air about it. So, a quick sketch taking AM down a notch:

 

 

Reduced complexity = reduced operational interest...but does this matter?

 

If more siding length is needed for storage or play value it's easy to run another siding alongside the platform loop (to the TT if need be). FWIW, a tandem off the double slip could give you end-loading back, and doesn't look too bad at all:

 

...but I've not found a nice way to do it using Peco turnouts.

 

It seems to me there's enough going on in that shed to keep you from getting bored, and although it drifts from the proposed station design I wonder if something like the above might not work out better. It's less fun and I don't like it so much, but perhaps it's worth ruling out a simple approach to confirm that the more complex version ticks more boxes?

[Nearholmer]

Made a very brief indeed visit to an exhibition today, and thought readers here might find this GER essay in EM interesting. It looks as if it’s been around a while, and ideally it would be a bit wider and longer to allow a feeling of fenland space, but I think the general feel and the track-plan are very good. A very practical little layout for taking to small shows.

 

 

 

 

Edited June 25, 2022 by Nearholmer

[Donw]

James

 

perhaps a fuller explanation will help 

 

Consider two stations with double track between them  called AC and BM where the track between them is a block section. One train only is allowed on each of the two lines. Access is controlled by block instruments. So when AC wants to send a train to BM bell codes are required to ask for line clear . In order to give the line clear BM must ensure there is a safety margin of 440yds behind the Home signal to endure that if the train fails to stop if the home signal is against it that there will not be an accident . No other trains or shunted vehicles are allowed within that 440 yards until the approaching train has come to a halt.

In the case of the suggested BM layout the up and down main lines share a short piece of track therefore once a train has left AC for BM  a train from BM to AC cannot be allowed to cross that piece of shared track if it is within the 440 yards.

 

There was a very serious accident where despite an express approaching a signalman restored the home signal and allowed  a shunt move across the main line the express arrived sooner than expected and hit the last vehicle.

 

In model form it would not be serious. However a train approaching BM would be clearly visible and to see a departing train cross that shared pice of track would look very wrong to someone who understood Absolute block regulations. 

 

Don 

[Edwardian]

5 minutes ago, Donw said:

James

 

perhaps a fuller explanation will help 

 

Consider two stations with double track between them  called AC and BM where the track between them is a block section. One train only is allowed on each of the two lines. Access is controlled by block instruments. So when AC wants to send a train to BM bell codes are required to ask for line clear . In order to give the line clear BM must ensure there is a safety margin of 440yds behind the Home signal to endure that if the train fails to stop if the home signal is against it that there will not be an accident . No other trains or shunted vehicles are allowed within that 440 yards until the approaching train has come to a halt.

In the case of the suggested BM layout the up and down main lines share a short piece of track therefore once a train has left AC for BM  a train from BM to AC cannot be allowed to cross that piece of shared track if it is within the 440 yards.

 

There was a very serious accident where despite an express approaching a signalman restored the home signal and allowed  a shunt move across the main line the express arrived sooner than expected and hit the last vehicle.

 

In model form it would not be serious. However a train approaching BM would be clearly visible and to see a departing train cross that shared pice of track would look very wrong to someone who understood Absolute block regulations. 

 

Don 

 

Perfect explanation, thank you, Don.

 

So what's the track layout that avoids this?

[Donw]

18 hours ago, Schooner said:

 

Notes:

The below may or may not be welcome. Presented here not as the answer but as a conversation stater, as per :) There are still many fudges to sort out...

• CA unchanged from pencil sketch really. It exists, it works, it'll be grand :) We've floated the idea of a headshunt at CA but I don't think one is required, WTT depending...
• Achingham has reverted to headshunt access from the platform road. Aesthetic choice really, not sure there's much in it, or that it much matters! Using a long Y for the platform dock turnout smoothed the approach curve and allowed the platform to be lengthened to about 6', if desired. 
• The through cassette yard might need another look once cassette type is decided upon. If something like the DCC MPD, which can be placed on top of ballasted track, then there might be scope to scenically develop 'inside the fence' at least. Shown is a 4'6" lie-by loop with 1' (loco) spurs at either end... Just a thought. I wouldn't expect it to be anything other than a storage/staging area, it's still a cassette yard after all, but it would allow the main line run to look better for longer. Opened up the space for cassette-switching.
• BM currently sports two sidings in a bog standard goods yard, rather than the little coal yard*. The idea of the twin sidings is a) moar storage! b) shows BM as the most significant place on the modeled network (which I think is correct?) and c) it places the operator clearly within the goods yard, hopefully excusing the proximity of the shed to the baseboard edge. There is full cart access to both sidings but only one side is in the modeled world, as it were. Between siding and wall (measured at the "Goods" label) is >200mm wide as shown, so there's lots of room for stores, workshops, offices etc if desired. There is also the small matter of three link couplings, access for which needs considered, here and elsewhere...
• The BM cattle dock siding holds about four cattle trucks clear of the turnout, or eight trucks clear of the slip. The loading dock could take a further five wagons whilst leaving the slip clear. Enough?
• As train and platform lengths have been mentioned, might was well list the rough usable lengths** them to see if they suit:
  • CA:  Main 1500mm/59", Dock 600mm/25"
  • AM: Main 1800mm/70", Dock (Bay?!) 950mm/37", Headshunt 1000mm/39"
  • BM: Main 1900mm/74". Branch 1200mm/47", Dock 400mm/15", Goods Loop 1250mm/49", LH Headshunt 700mm/27", RH 'Headshunt' 1050mm/41"

Should be enough for a <1400mm/55" train to look about right...? 

 

*I had in mind sorting (NMR?) coal trains here, for coal agents along the line and the Achingham Gas Works...but looking at the WNR route map on the opening post, this isn't a thing.

** Leaving pointwork clear by 90mm. All lengths rounded down at every opportunity, so likely to be exceeded in reality.

 

• General note. All building footprints shown on the plan are massive. Eg the BM goods shed footprint is longer than 

(picking a fairly random example from a Google search) and half as wide again; the adjacent loading docks are c.80mm wide vs the c.60mm they 'should' be. Partly being generous with intent, partly rough and ready, partly roofs in SCARM having enormous eaves! Strong combo. Once the plan settles, and if suitable prototypes/dimensions are suggested, I'm very happy to go through the stations and adjust the plan to match. Then we can all get a better sense of whether the scenes work and if whole thing hangs together or not.

 

Not to say this is correct, but envisaged is something like:

• Goods train received in loop (facing access from all running lines shown - overkill or handy?)
• Loco runs round as req. then sets train into the RH (as we look at the plan) 'headshunt' (actually storage siding)*
• BM cut shunted as required using LH headshunt, from which yard sidings, shed and dock/crane are all accessible**
• Outbound wagons added to train
• Train backed into the loop, loco runs round as req.
• Goods train departs loop
• Shorter/BM-only trains can work entirely from the loop, without having to use the RH 'headshunt', which could be used to hold another train etc. 
• Use of a station pilot could simplify/complicate matters as desired :) Dedicated cattle trains (if they're a thing?) could work from the branch platform, perhaps.

 

*So ideally the BM portion to be marshalled at the rear of Up (South-bound, towards through cassette yard) trains, and front of Down (Northbound, toward terminus cassette yard) trains

**It might be a bit of a pain that there's no direct access between cattle/loading dock and goods loop or headshunts, but the moves are simple, if long, using the running lines. I hope this keeps shunting the dock on the interesting side of tedious busywork, but that balance lies with James really. The cheeky little loop on the left of the station as we look at the plan (RH for operator, North for West Norfolk Geographers) may come in handy at busy times...

 

Route A:

Simple, functional. Looks a bit off to me because of the c.3' (about an average train length?) of apparent wrong line running.

 

vs. Route B:

Less simple, equally functionally. It looks better to my eye.

 

'Route C' (to maintain a theme) is a simplification which has just occured to me:

Which is Route B with the facing connection to the Up platform and Goods Loop removed. Simplest, prettiest, least functional.

 

Down goods trains might have to take one of the branch lines, then set back into the loop, then shunt; or work from the branch platform, perhaps? Or BM is only served by Up goods traffic, with a serving yard on each branch? Can't check the route map atm to see if that's viable or not.

 

 

Roger

 

 

...

 

Just focussing on the two examples with the yellow lines

 

In the first the Up and Down mains share a piece of track

 

In the second the two tracks are separate but with connections 

 

the first an up and down train could collide in the second trains up and down have separate paths

 

Don

[Regularity]

9 hours ago, Nearholmer said:

Made a very brief indeed visit to an exhibition today, and thought readers here might find this GER essay in EM interesting. It looks as if it’s been around a while, and ideally it would be a bit wider and longer to allow a feeling of fenland space, but I think the general feel and the track-plan are very good. A very practical little layout for taking to small shows.

Looks like a Wis&Up themed layout.

Can you provide a bit more information on the layout?

[jwealleans]

16 hours ago, Nearholmer said:

thought readers here might find this GER essay in EM interesting.

 

I operate an O gauge layout with an identical track plan.   It's Tollesbury with one extra siding added.  In 7mm it's only 15" wide and when it started it was a really handy little shunting puzzle (it's more thought-provoking than you might think to operate).  It has now grown and developed a 90 degree curve, but the builder has sensibly kept track placement consistent so you can exhibit it in a number of different permutations.

 

For those interested, it's called Asenby St Peter and will be at the Hartlepool show in October.

 

 

 

[wagonman]

On 24/06/2022 at 17:57, Welchester said:

 

 

I thought they were two novelists: father and son Kingsley and Martin.

 

Only when you're a wee bit pished...