A garage, O scale and the Ploughley Hundred Light Railway (was Gawcott & Westbury Light Railway)

[Nearholmer]

3 hours ago, Ray H said:

I subsequently thought of using a couple of pieces of something like 4mm plywood of the desired height/length to form the outers of a sandwich with 18mm square softwood.

 

Good idea that. You do have to be careful not to screw the trackbed down hard though, whatever risers you use, otherwise you can get a series of curved steps in the incline.

 

Another random thought: what about those plastic adjustable "feet" that go below kitchen units, hidden by the kick-board?

[Ray H]

3 hours ago, Nearholmer said:

Another random thought: what about those plastic adjustable "feet" that go below kitchen units, hidden by the kick-board?

 

I've just checked Google. The lowest they seem to go is 50mm in the ones I found (at Wickes) and are £37 for ten.

 

I will try to calculate the riser heights/positioning before hand to get the gradient as smooth as possible. Because the riser top will effectively be parallel to the baseboard surface, the inclined board will only touch one corner of the riser. Another good reason to not to screw the incline base down to tightly.

 

 

The green tracks are under the upper level boards. The (green) stub track's exact positioning will be determined by the tracks on a turntable board next to it. 

 

It is just possible to make out the inside edge of the baseboards with no board greater than 60cms wide.

 

I've tried to take previous comments on board and removed some sidings. With trains no longer than seven wagons and a Brake Van the siding space reduction shouldn't be too noticeable.

 

There are no longer any curves below 40 inches.

[Ray H]

There has been another slight change to the layout. The higher station's carriage siding - bottom right in the above plan - is now two adjacent sidings with the one nearest the wall serving a (low relief) factory. The point previously leading to the carriage siding has moved to the left of the crossover to allow for the extra point leading to the two sidings.

 

I suddenly realised last evening that the turntable board that I was planning to use in the fiddle yard so that I could gain partial access to the deck will all but be prevented from turning by the tracks between the back of the deck and the wall.

 

Having now checked the movement scope of the same size traverser I'm decided to change over to one of these.

 

I may make a start today on building the first of the points. I've seen a few Light Railway layout pictures where the sleeper spacing seems to be increased (i.e. using less sleepers). Is this something that happened generally on Light Railways or has it done under modeller's rule 1?

[Nearholmer]

Some LR’s used interlaced timbers at points, rather than full-length cross-timbers. Personally, I’m not aware of above-normal spacing, but it would be well worth looking at lots of photos of the real thing, because practices varied, and changed over time as the early, very light, track fell to bits.

 

If you can see the timbers in the grass, the Derwent Valley might be a good one, or KESR or EKR up to the 1950s, because they were possibly mostly bullhead by then, with maybe still early FB in sidings. 
 

Here’s a PWay crew on the DVLR in 50/60s, and I think this turnout is conventional, although I’d love to know what all those very short bits of wood are all about - they hint at replacement of only parts of timbers, or they might just be using them as temporary packing.

 

 

Edited January 25, 2022 by Nearholmer

[Ray H]

1 hour ago, Nearholmer said:

Some LR’s used interlaced timbers at points, rather than full-length cross-timbers. Personally, I’m not aware of above-normal spacing, but it would be well worth looking at lots of photos of the real thing, because practices varied, and changed over time as the early, very light, track fell to bits.

 

If you can see the timbers in the grass, the Derwent Valley might be a good one, or KESR or EKR up to the 1950s, because they were possibly mostly bullhead by then, with maybe still early FB in sidings. 
 

Here’s a PWay crew on the DVLR in 50/60s, and I think this turnout is conventional, although I’d love to know what all those very short bits of wood are all about - they hint at replacement of only parts of timbers, or they might just be using them as temporary packing.

 

 

 

Thanks for that picture. I must admit that I'd only seen evidence of extended spacing in some O gauge minimum space layouts. I'm building all the points but using Peco track for the plain line so extra spacing on points only would look strange.

 

I was just about to print off the first few templates so that I can make a start on a point when I noticed that I'd got several points across baseboard joints.

 

The changes to the upper station weren't to severe.

 

The lower station on the other hand required a bit of more drastic action. The upside is that I've now been able to extend the exchange siding to a similar length to that of the traverser tracks.

[Ray H]

All is now sorted with the relationship between boards joins and points as far as I can see/think.

 

The base level boards are now on order - I shall be following the suggestion above for the upper level ones and making them myself using the flush door style idea. I shall probably do something similar for the lifting access flap.

 

The rail and PCB sleepering for the pointwork has also been ordered and I've printed off the templates for the first three points for which I think I may just have enough of both in stock.

 

I've been looking at the gradient options. I can stretch the gradient to approx. 1:60 throughout and have an 8 inch difference between the top surfaces of the two levels. I hope this will be enough space to reach any miscreants at the the back of the lower board.

 

I also calculated that I can reduce the gradient through the Halt and about half a metre either side to 1:75 with minimal impact on the gradient for the rest of the climb. However, as I'll still need to find a way to stop the uncoupled wagons rolling back down the incline I shall probably stick with the same gradient throughout.

 

Has anyone tried fitting an accessory decoder to (say) a brake van in such a way that it would act like a brake? I wonder if it would be practical to have a servo driven by an accessory decoder mounted in the vehicle, with the horn itself bearing down on the wheel tread or driving a rod that digs into the ballast between the sleepers and stops the vehicles from moving.

 

The other option that I have seen modelled is a lineside servo where the horn swings across the track to prevent the vehicle passing a signal at danger or (in my case) acting as a scotch to prevent the vehicles rolling back. At least this option doesn't require dedicated vehicles in the train.

 

I am/was thinking of supporting the gradient approximately every 12 inches. Believe it or not that appears to take around 40 supports, each one different from its neighbours!

[Ray H]

The OO layout departed yesterday although not as safely as I was hoping. Part of the condition of sale was that I would assist establishing it in its new home. That will now be a slightly more complex process than I'd hoped for, coupled with the fact that the new owner is only around at weekends for the next few months. 

 

Today has been spent tidying up/re-locating all the various bits that had been stored on top of the OO layout before it left, taking advantage of the fact that I can temporarily access the shelving under where the layout was from the top so I don't have to crawl around on the floor. 

 

All being well Puzzel Yard will be elevated from its trolley tomorrow so that I can have a working layout again in the short term at least.

 

Hopefully (?) the components for the new points will arrive this week so that I can crack on with them. I'm not in a hurry to assemble the baseboards (when they arrive) as I still need to assemble the MERG sourced frog juicer "kits" that I will be using (not to mention wiring up some new control panels for the club.

[Ray H]

Puzzel Yard was "erected" yesterday after I'd tidied up. The problem was, having tidied things up and placed the layout over where the tidied items were, I then had to effectively remove the layout to see where I'd re-deployed the track rubber i was looking for.

 

Lo and behold, just a short while later I found and got out the track gauges ready for when I start building points and found them rusty. Now whereabouts (under Puzzel Yard) had I put the vices (to hold said gauges whilst I cleaned them)? I dismantled the layout yet again only to find subsequently that I'd put the vices in a drawer on the other side of the garage!

 

There's no going back now. The (Peco) track has been ordered as have several other items and my intention is to start point building before lunch (today).

 

I realised yesterday that I keep finding things that I have run out of and then overlook to re-order them when next shopping. I started a shopping list and used that for some on-line shopping this morning only to realise within minutes of concluding the the last purchase from the list that I could have ordered a new track rubber whilst I was on line. Bah! That'll now be top of the next shopping list.

[Ray H]

Eagle eyed readers may notice the change to the thread's title. I've taken notice of Nearholmer's suggestion  and, at least for the time being, the light railway side of the layout will be known as the Gawcott & Westbury Light Railway. All I have to do now is dream up (or find) a name for the small halt approximately halfway between the two main stations. Mixbury or Tingewick maybe?

 

There's still a week or so before the baseboard kits arrive so I've spent some time making up three of the points for the lower (= Gawcott) station.

 

 

There's a similar mirrored pointwork arrangement at the other end of the station so they will be the next points to be tackled. That will leave two single points to build to complete all the pointwork on the lower level. These may take a while to build because I have some control panels to wire up for the club's layout.

 

I was originally planning to "hide" most of the gradient behind the backscene boards of the lower level station/trackwork. My mind is now drifting towards leaving the gradient in full view on a grassed embankment around the outside of the lower level tracks. I don't need to make a final decision until the lower level tracks are in position and the laying of the gradient tracks has started.

[F-UnitMad]

6 hours ago, Ray H said:

My mind is now drifting towards leaving the gradient in full view on a grassed embankment around the outside of the lower level tracks.

That's what I would do. It would be a shame to hide the train for such a long part of it's journey.

[Ray H]

That's the way to go then. I'd better start saving up again to pay for the extra grass and ballast  

[jcarta]

4 hours ago, Ray H said:

That's the way to go then. I'd better start saving up again to pay for the extra grass and ballast  

 

If not ask Andy Peters....... he may have some nearly new grass and ballast...

[Happy Hippo]

Ray,

 

I've just looked a the last track diagram and wonder if you have the crossover in the station with the two exchange sidings the wrong way round?  As it stands you cannot pass trains in the loop.

[Ray H]

4 hours ago, Happy Hippo said:

Ray,

 

I've just looked a the last track diagram and wonder if you have the crossover in the station with the two exchange sidings the wrong way round?  As it stands you cannot pass trains in the loop.

 

Richard

 

Well spotted and thanks for mentioning it.

 

The crossover is that way round intentionally. The theory behind the layout is that BR operated trains will work between the fiddle Yard and the first/lower/Gawcott station only. Freight stock will be dropped back into the siding from whence the Light Railway loco will take over and work the vehicles forward or shunt them them into the other siding(s) on the LR side of the station.

 

I have a (BR) railcar for their passenger service and plan to buy/build a couple of four wheelers for the Light Railway's occasional passenger trains. I haven't decided whether to allow the LR loco access to the BR side of the station to run round or whether to have a turn-over engine.

[kes]

Hi Ray, I like the thought process you have followed to get the plan right before building commenced, working the same way could save others a lot of pain! I found when building points on copper clad that I needed packing under the sleepers to bring them up to the thickness of Peco track. I also noted that you need more packing than you think as the Peco track has a gap between the bottom of the rail and the sleeper where the chair goes, whereas the copper clad has the rail soldered direct. I found suppliers on Ebay who sold mount board in various thicknesses. You need to mate a point to a length of track to work out the thickness required. I am thoroughly enjoying your build. Best Wishes, Kevin.

Edited February 6, 2022 by kes
spell checker correcting things!

[Nearholmer]

I do wonder whether the track layout of the exchange station might need a bit of tweaking to make it as plausible as possible.

 

When you explained the overall concept initially, I thought that the BR line was imagined to continue to somewhere else, which is what made me suggest Westbury & Fulwell as inspiration, that being a very simple through station, with no passing loop. ( http://disused-stations.org.uk/f/fullwell_and_westbury/index.shtml )

 

The LR would then be the one with the runaround loop, not accessible by the BR trains. Maybe something like this:

 

The challenge in model form, of course, is that the BR goods train can’t simply shunt the exchange sidings, then carry on to somewhere else; it needs to return to the fidfleyard. Which suggests the need for a BR run round loop too, which in turn starts to demand lots of space.

 

I’ll keep thinking about it!

 

 

[Ray H]

Hi Kes

 

Thanks for your comments. I was aware of the sleeper height difference from previous experience with copper clad point construction, but thanks for reminding me.

 

I do like to have a plan to start with although it isn't unknown for some mind changing either along the way. All this thinking is being semi-forced upon me because I haven't got the baseboards - yet!

 

Nearholmer

 

I can see where you're coming from. The present plan is probably more rule 1 than prototypical but your post has made me think a bit more about it, although I'd prefer not to have to change the arrangement at the fiddle yard end of the interchange station because I've just finished building the points for that end.   

 

I've set the exchange siding length to match the length of the fiddle yard traverser track(s) which in turn has reduced the scope for the length of the platform tracks. I also wanted to have at least one (short?) siding on the BR side to complicate the shunting!

 

I did think of running the railcar on beyond Westbury a while ago but gave up that idea when I started encountering my exchange siding length restrictions. The freight's were never intended to go beyond Westbury. (Thanks also for pointing out that I'd got the station names the wrong way round earlier ).

 

I'll have a look at moving the tracks at the left hand end of the plan slightly towards the centre and extending the cattle dock siding alongside the LR track to also pass underneath the high level track to terminate in a hidden stub track.

 

The exchange siding's position is mainly determined by the end of the fixed baseboard - i.e. I wasn't planning to extend it onto the access flap to keep the flap size/weight as low as possible. I have just realised that the exchange siding won't need to accommodate either the brake van or the loco's length. In fact I suppose the freights could be shunted in two parts to increase the "Puzzle" factor. Hmmmmmmmmmmm.

 

Watch this space.

[Nearholmer]

The “not having the baseboards yet” business is driving me mad too. For the first time in my life, I decided to buy a set, rather than make them, for my downsized-portable layout, and the supplier seems to have over-committed his capacity, so that delivery is forever “next week or the week after”.

 

In my case, layout building is meant to be a winter activity, and I do outdoor things in better weather, so these baseboards are beginning to slip outside the “opportunity window” if I’m going to get at least the basics of the track down before spring.

[Nearholmer]

As a PS:

 

In case anyone doubts a double-slip on a LR, here is Kelevedon, on the K&TLR. The line going up the hill is the link to the GER, and the double slip gives access to the exchange siding (left front), and K&T main line (centre front), the K&T terminus being in the distance.

 

Ive always thought it was an arrangement designed to cause runaway derailments!

 

 

[F-UnitMad]

1 hour ago, Ray H said:

I also wanted to have at least one (short?) siding on the BR side to complicate the shunting!

I would be wary of introducing track just to make shunting "complicated".

"Complicated" easily becomes "pain in the backside" and then avoided. The real railways didn't lay track just to make operations complicated, or a 'challenge' for the crew - if anything they would want things done as efficiently and as quickly as possible. Note the debates that sometimes arise on RMweb regarding slow speed running - shunting was often done rather quicker than at a snail crawl; it was costing the railway money!!

[Ray H]

Perhaps the word complicated was wrong.

 

I was thinking that something like livestock would probably be kept on the BR side rather than incur the inevitable delay that would arise as the result of having to move the vehicles between operators.

 

I'd also like to provide a bit more variety (for the operator) in the movements rather than simply swapping the operating company.

 

I do take your point, although I know from experience that it was frequently possible for staff to complete their tasks quicker than the time they were allowed.

[Ray H]

Here's one option that I've come up with.

 

 

I realised that by changing the layout at Westbury (the lower level) that I'd lose the continuous run because my first thought was to terminate the BR line in a stub siding that terminated under the Goods Shed at Gawcott (the upper level).

 

That idea was changed so that the BR line now crosses the LR track on the level under the upper level boards. This replaces one turnout with a long crossing. The railcar might just be able to "park up" between the over bridge (that it passes beneath on the left hand side of the plan) and the aforementioned long crossing but would probably run over and beyond the long crossing before stopping.

 

The latest plan also allows for (BR) freight trains to continue beyond Westbury (if required), pass under the upper level and then reverse back onto the traverser (with the reverse happening in the opposite direction). I may re-arrange the track under Gawcott so that if the freights continue past Westbury  they will still have to reverse to reach the traverser but can do so without reversal within the scenic section, below the halt.

 

I'm a tad concerned about the two adjacent tracks passing under the the bridge carrying the line to Gawcott. I wonder if the unsupported length of the bridge deck will be too long and I don't know if there's room to add an extra support in between the two lower tracks.

[Nearholmer]

I do like that.

 

The bridge question is one for experimentation, I think.

[Ray H]

Another option for Westbury might be to have an island platform somewhat akin to Haven Street, IOW with the Booking Office alongside or at right angles to the LR track.

 

The new arrangement will reduce the usable area at the back of the traverser. I've looked at moving the traverser board nearer to the centre of the layout but the inclined track will then impede it more where it side slips the garage's brick pillar and I don't think access from either end with the traverser in that position would be possible either.

 

I may print out the tracks in the bridge area and see if I can lay the pages out to assess the options.

 

By chance there is an article in the latest Gauge O Guild Gazette about a means of stopping runaways on gradients. I shall experiment and see whether I can make it work on this layout.

[GRASinBothell]

Or St Agnes Station in Cornwall.

https://www.google.com/search?source=univ&tbm=isch&q=st+agnes+station&client=firefox-b-1-d&fir=r2EMsmYB4jUm5M%2CVs4NTXrONMIUjM%2C_%3BKiMtJAAbhEKCXM%2C9MzZCvRcn1BHyM%2C_%3B-pJsutnBCN9GNM%2CjzCw71KHOaJV-M%2C_%3BLsXqhn-_-dpDJM%2CcmByCtKgkNJDGM%2C_%3BmnXrbWHJiF-ZjM%2CdBiG-IMIcoYCbM%2C_%3Bvayt7Q9wImg8WM%2CjSKPP8b2qdFsOM%2C_%3BFSRP4yfRqCjUPM%2CVRvEfm1p_7ACvM%2C_%3BCLE-9eieA-3cNM%2CIlKHevfa1FiHqM%2C_%3B6J0IO5pmFhVt1M%2CxsxAOHPBF3njTM%2C_%3BwK8sElvu29xtjM%2CdU-dv_-0cs5kiM%2C_&usg=AI4_-kQA1mkACtlxkePVYEuOVZOVvA7jdA&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjt7InbofH1AhVCKn0KHU9qB8wQjJkEegQIAxAC&biw=1409&bih=634&dpr=1.25#imgrc=vayt7Q9wImg8WM

Gordon