Castle Aching

[Nearholmer]

12 hours ago, Regularity said:

Can you provide a bit more information on the layout?

It’s called something like Ousewell, and the stock the guy uses seems to reflect mixed K&T and W&U influences, possibly with other GE-area light railways thrown in.

 

Thats all I observed. 

[Regularity]

Thanks. I can see the mixture in there.

 

Ousewell St. Jude

Edited June 26, 2022 by Regularity
Name added

[Hroth]

On 24/06/2022 at 12:24, jcredfer said:

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.

 

It's one of those airfix/Dapol turntables?

I wondered where they got the idea from!

 

[Edwardian]

On 26/06/2022 at 12:43, Regularity said:

Thanks. I can see the mixture in there.

 

Ousewell St. Jude

 

I think there will have to be a church in West Norfolk dedicated to a St Jude. I'm debating whether this should be St Jude the Apostate or St Jude the Obscure.

[kingfisher9147]

My suggestion with a TT is get the peco one and adapt it unless you either go with a Dapol or Hornby one. There are Ho scale one but keep 8t simple. 

Mike

[Compound2632]

8 minutes ago, kingfisher9147 said:

My suggestion with a TT is get the peco one and adapt it unless you either go with a Dapol or Hornby one. There are Ho scale one but keep 8t simple. 

Mike

 

The problem is that there is not a suitable RTP turntable of pre-grouping dimensions - only the 65 ft - 70 ft behemoths. There are some fancy kits around for diameters of 50 ft and below but nothing for the quick fix one wants to get things up an running. The Dapol kit - or any over-girder design - don't really fit the pre-grouping look.

[Regularity]

23 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

 

The problem is that there is not a suitable RTP turntable of pre-grouping dimensions - only the 65 ft - 70 ft behemoths. There are some fancy kits around for diameters of 50 ft and below but nothing for the quick fix one wants to get things up an running. The Dapol kit - or any over-girder design - don't really fit the pre-grouping look.

Not sure that the pre-grouping scene is ideal territory for anyone wanting a “quick fix”, but this not too expensive kit for 0-16.5 has a deck scaling out to 53’ in 4mm scale, and should be modifiable with new handrails, etc. https://www.kitwoodhillmodels.com/on30-9-pit-turntable/

 

Edited June 29, 2022 by Regularity
Added embedded link.

[Compound2632]

For far too long I've been mulling over without any action the idea of a turntable using a standard straight piece of set-track, as a nice rigid base. At 167.5 mm long, that would give a 42 ft diameter well, more-or-less.

[Regularity]

Did that (albeit slightly longer) when I was about 13. Didn’t know enough about how to arrange power to the rails, though, and hand-pushing locos one and off felt a bit toy-like. It does work, though.

[Edwardian]

Could this be of use?

 

 

[Compound2632]

1 hour ago, Edwardian said:

Could this be of use?

 

 

 

We went round that before. You were frustrated that they have thick sleepers but the plain line you'd laid had thin sleepers.

[Edwardian]

3 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

 

We went round that before. You were frustrated that they have thick sleepers but the plain line you'd laid had thin sleepers.

 

I was simply annoyed at the fallacious arguments the supplier's fanboys raised to justify departing from the advertised thin sleeper option. Sleepers, like the US Supreme Court, are easily packed.

[St Enodoc]

7 hours ago, Edwardian said:

 

I was simply annoyed at the fallacious arguments the supplier's fanboys raised to justify departing from the advertised thin sleeper option. Sleepers, like the US Supreme Court, are easily packed.

The easy way round that is to use different thicknesses of trackbed/underlay.

[Donw]

I was involved with some trials of this sort of turnout in 2mm. However Wayne has improved the system since then removing the cast frog and improving the tiebar arrangement.  If the range of turnouts meet your need I would say go for  it. It should be practical to curve the turnout slightly too.

 

Don 

[Schooner]

In the spirit of fun and frolics, I've been fiddling with the bits of BM which annoyed me. Updated version below for comments as per:

 

Usual caveats apply - hopefully the above is functionally legible, even if not the prettiest. It's a kitchen-sink representation, on the grounds it's easier to take track out than add it in!

 

• Approaches de-slipped, as best possible. The remaining slip (LHS/North) is the only viable use of the space, and I think both looks and works well enough?
• Turntable re-jigged so it's now direct access. This makes for less fussing about when turning locos.
• Side loading (and crane) siding also re-jigged. Enough of a nod to the shed at Achingham? As is probably obvious, all the goods facilities can be shunted quite simply from the LHS.
• Possibilities for cattle dock A, B or A + B...it's all up for debate! The wiggle is an artifact of a previous version*, but I liked it** so it stayed :) 
• I'm just going to mention couplings again. If one is going to shunt using three-links anywhere, BM would be the place. I remain concerned about their use elsewhere...

*In case James wanted to run 20+wagon cattle trains and deal with them all at the same time. On reflection, this seemed unlikely!

**To me it suggests a re-developed track plan, which is correct for BM.

 

In context then:

Just had a little tinker with the upper cassette space*, to extend the 'main line' scenic run beyond 13' / >3 train lengths, but this won't be accurate until cassettes are chosen and dimensions and utility confirmed. Operator positions are sketched in only as a little reality check. I've just noticed that an engine shed has snuck onto AM, to show it fits if need be.

 

*I hope that by using cassettes that can be placed onto the existing track, the suggestion of a lie-by siding (or exchange loop...for the biscuit factory...?!) gives some extra storage without losing scenic coherence

 

Cheers all!

 

[Nick Holliday]

I appreciate that in 6 years and 1,307 pages of discussion I have possibly missed something that would justify it, but one aspect of the layout design that puzzles me is the way Achingham station appears to have larger capacity than Castle Aching. Since, as I understand it, all trains from Achingham have to reverse at Castle Aching, it looks strange to me that the platforms at CA are about one coach shorter than the corresponding ones at A. I believe that, as modelled, this is not a problem, because it seems the cassettes proposed are shorter than the CA platform, but in real life, being able to assemble a train at A's platform that cannot fit into the arrival road at CA seems an operational problem that would have been quickly resolved.

Although I presume that the population of CA would not justify greater goods or passenger facilities for their own use, I would have thought that there would also be additional traffic to and from Aching Constable and Birchoverham to deal with, rather than it being simply a reversing point for Achingham trains only, as per Lydham Heath on the Bishop's Castle Railway, and I would have expected CA to have more platform and siding space to accommodate this traffic.

Edited August 18, 2022 by Nick Holliday
Spelling

[Edwardian]

11 minutes ago, Nick Holliday said:

I appreciate that in 6 years and 1,307 pages of discussion I have possibly missed something that would justify it, but one aspect of the layout design that puzzles me is the way Achingham station appears to have larger capacity than Castle Aching. Since, as I understand it, all trains from Achingham have to reverse at Castle Aching, it looks strange to me that the platforms at CA are about one coach shorter than the corresponding ones at A. I believe that, as modelled, this is not a problem, because it seems the cassettes proposed are shorter than the CA platform, but in real life, being able to assemble a train at A's platform that cannot fit into the arrival road at CA seems an operational problem that would have been quickly resolved.

Although I presume that the population of CA would not justify greater goods or passenger facilities for their own use, I would have thought that there would also be additional traffic to and from Aching Constable and Birchoverham to deal with, rather than it being simply a reversing point for Achingham trains only, as per Lytham Heath on the Bishop's Castle Railway, and I would have expected CA to have more platform and siding space to accommodate this traffic.

 

Indeed, both CA and Achingham should have the same length of platform; 54".

 

If there appears to be a discrepancy, that may be down to the difficulty in translating my pencil sketches into this program.  

 

And you bring us back to the question of capacity at CA.

[Hroth]

46 minutes ago, Edwardian said:

And you bring us back to the question of capacity at CA.

 

You need a bigger shed?

 

 

Ahem........

[Schooner]

1 hour ago, Nick Holliday said:

...one aspect of the layout design that puzzles me is the way Achingham station appears to have larger capacity than Castle Aching.

 

Entirely on me that one, sorry! The pointwork on the approach to Achingham platform road is placed for best flow out of the curve - no longer strictly matching @Edwardian's plan - and I simply extended the platform to fill the available space.

 

An easy fix to reduce platform length - much easier than the other way round! - and I'll make that change for the next version.

 

A quick note warn against taking these plans too seriously - they're just sketches really. Sketches with the useful ability to accurately measure radius and distance, but still sketches. The more issues identified now, the better a future 'good enough to build from' version could be :)

[Edwardian]

16 minutes ago, Schooner said:

 

Entirely on me that one, sorry! The pointwork on the approach to Achingham platform road is placed for best flow out of the curve - no longer strictly matching @Edwardian's plan - and I simply extended the platform to fill the available space.

 

An easy fix to reduce platform length - much easier than the other way round! - and I'll make that change for the next version.

 

A quick note warn against taking these plans too seriously - they're just sketches really. Sketches with the useful ability to accurately measure radius and distance, but still sketches. The more issues identified now, the better a future 'good enough to build from' version could be :)

 

Your "sketches" are far better than anything I come up with and are able to confirm the geometry, so I benefit enormously from them. 

 

EDIT: Last night I was very tired and only really took in the addition of an engine shed at Achingham.

 

BM is looking very good now, but comments are always welcome. I cannot recall the thought process behind de-slipping? Does the current iteration seem fairly prototypical?

 

Toward the top of the plan, I had 2 points:

 

1) I cannot recall what was said about cassettes that can be placed on existing track, so that confused me. I struggle to envisage this.

 

I had thought to use Intentio laser-cut cassettes. Also, whereas the trains need never be turned, the locos must be, so I had envisaged separate short cassettes for them. I don't know if that has an impact on the proposed system. 

 

2) I was sorry to lose the prototypical junction arrangement. Now that the AC north and south junctions are not modelled, I had hope to have room to do the CA-Achingham junction prototypically. 

Edited August 18, 2022 by Edwardian

[Schooner]

52 minutes ago, Edwardian said:

I struggle to envisage this.

 

Cassette placed on existing track (which could be ballasted, and dressed to sleeper-top - cassette could be used on a scenic run):

Cassette placed in gap in existing track (and 3mm underlay):

 

The original idea was a 'proper' cassette yard area, as previously seen, which is a good and workable approach. Later on someone mentioned the DCC Concepts MPD and, unbidden, I simply ran with the excuse to have more of that top mainline run scenic :)

 

1 hour ago, Edwardian said:

the thought process behind de-slipping?

My thought (there was no discussion, sorry!) was to check the pros and cons of each approach. As I saw it, the reasons to try a version without the double slips, other than to find out if it was possible:

• Practical - longer goods loop, smoother run with fewer reverse curves, simpler 
• Aesthetic - although the slipped approaches have something about them, I believe they'd be unlikely in reality and it makes the station seem on the cramped side of cosy.

Some views:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I don't think there's a right or wrong really, just options :) And, for me, the interest of learning what does and doesn't work with standard Peco geometry.

 

1 hour ago, Edwardian said:

 

2) I was sorry to lose the prototypical junction arrangement. Now that the AC north and south junctions are not modelled, I had hope to have room to do the CA-Achingham junction prototypically. 

I'll have a look at this next. It ties into fettling the upper fiddle yard to take the Intentio cassettes anyway, so it's a good time to have a play with it :)

[Donw]

With any layout plan you come up against the limitations of space.  At that point you start to compromise. You need to decide where your priorities lie. Typical compromises;

 

Train length vs Length of open run

        the longer the trains the bigger the stations need to be and the open track between them shinks. Because the trains are longer the effect of the shrinking open track is magnified.

 

Station complexity vs station length 

   a simple halt needs to be no longer than a train but if you want a loop to pass trains that adds a point at each end  increasing the length by more than two turnouts as you have to allow for the clearing point.

 

Just be clear where your priorities lie  and how much weight to give to each of your preferences.

 

Don

[Edwardian]

Metropolitan Carriage & Wagon Works 1872 Brake Third for the WNR, as running in 1905 with later door vents, additional lighting, continuous upper footboards and continuous vacuum brakes, for review (there are some changes to make):

[Edwardian]

2 hours ago, Edwardian said:

Metropolitan Carriage & Wagon Works 1872 Brake Third for the WNR, as running in 1905 with later door vents, additional lighting, continuous upper footboards and continuous vacuum brakes, for review (there are some changes to make):

 

There are, however, some issues.

 

The original ones built for the LSWR originally had just one lamp over the centre passenger compartment, and a second over the luggage space. The WNR is more generous; there will be a lamp over each compartment and full height partitions. However, the lamps should be placed centrally over the passenger doors and between the 2 luggage doors.

 

The paneling has errors. The eaves panels should extend to the line of the window/vertical panel edges. They are short, especially the long one between the end passenger compartment and the Guard/Luggage compartment.

 

The two blind panels should extend downward, their base to form a line with the bottoms of the widows. The twin blind panels on the ducket have the opposite problem.

 

The ends of the raised waist beading should also line up with the window edges, but does not in all cases.

 

The end steps are in completely the wrong place.

 

I'm not sure why the designer made these errors - the drawings were clear enough in my view - so he has been asked to amend. 

 

If anyone spots anything else, please shout.

 

 

[Compound2632]

What are the lamp-hole bungs sitting on?