A GWR journey through the 1920s and 30s

I drove a 2CV in the desert from Marrakesh, it was a hoot on the sand.  It got blown away in sandstorm, crumpled up, yet still got me back.  The hire company just took a hammer to it to straighten it out a bit.  Great fun!  
But my favourite ever car was my Triumph Spitfire.  My pride and joy.  I restored her.  All metal - had to import the bonnet from India!  I spent far more than she was worth, but it was such a joy.  My girlfriend at the time drove her into the back of a lorry,  the day after I had had her resprayed (the car, not my girlfriend).  Both had to go!

Michael

  What a magnificent romp with that 2CV Michael and besides my spanner and duck tape, I’ll add a small hammer to my tool roll to deal with other eventualities!
  
A huge thank you for everyone’s valuable input freely offered, which is very gratefully received. I confess having sketched the branch without due consideration of the mathematics necessary to elevate it sufficiently over the storage yard. There is insufficient length, so the branch needs to grow to make it work and avoid a dirty big diesel banking loco!
  
The plan will be revised by sliding the through station to the left to enable the branch to start sooner, giving a much longer incline, combined with the mitigating effects of DCC Concepts’ PowerBase system, which has some impressive reports of satisfied modellers on the net. The loco facilities will be moved to the left hand board, with the goods yard to a more accessible front location on the long board.
  
Due to the likely delay in completely freeing up all the workshop space for the railway room (too many vehicles), I’ll build the branch first as a preliminary project which sounds more realistic now that Hattons are expecting the full range of Peco bullhead trackwork during October and November this year. Well, we’ll see about that, but I have sufficient to make a good start, although I’d like medium radius points for the sake of compression.
  
Time to plan the branch.
  
Cheers,
  
Bill

I installed the DCC Concepts powerbase plates under both my inclines even though I may never need it as I reasoned, for the cost, the problems involved in installing it afterwards should I need it, were not worth the risk. If you are stuck for availability in these dificult times I think I have a couple of packs left over, not sure of the cost of sending them to France from Spain, but you know where they are if supply is holding you up.

I’m always worried about inclines. The power base seems intriguing. I’d be worried that after all that time and effort there would still be stalling and that would instantly take the pleasure out of it. 
That said I’ve seen it done many times so it must work. You could also help by having an incline on the main layout to reduce the incline required to the fiddle yard!? 

[user=1886]DaveH_Murcia[/user] wrote:

I installed the DCC Concepts powerbase plates under both my inclines even though I may never need it as I reasoned, for the cost, the problems involved in installing it afterwards should I need it, were not worth the risk. If you are stuck for availability in these dificult times I think I have a couple of packs left over, not sure of the cost of sending them to France from Spain, but you know where they are if supply is holding you up.

 Hi Dave,
  
I have a starter PowerBase pack in my Hattons’ trunk, ready to ship when I’m ready for it and I see that Coastal DCC also have some in stock, unlike DCC Concepts themselves! Thank you for your most kind offer to supply some of your surplus packs and if I get stuck when I really need it, I’ll let you know.
  
I’ll be starting the branch baseboards soon, all of which will be level, the PowerBase system only being used on the incline.
  
Continued happy modelling with your splendid layout in hopefully slightly cooler temeratures!
  
Bill
  

[user=2057]TeaselBay[/user] wrote:

I’m always worried about inclines. The power base seems intriguing. I’d be worried that after all that time and effort there would still be stalling and that would instantly take the pleasure out of it. 
That said I’ve seen it done many times so it must work. You could also help by having an incline on the main layout to reduce the incline required to the fiddle yard!? 

 Hi Chris,
  
Apparently, the secret of making PowerBase work really well is to install the loco magnets within 1mm of the top of the track rails. There are small etchings available to help achieve this for locos with larger wheels, thus increased ground clearance, after which they seem to romp up 1 in 30 inclines with a goodly amount of stock following behind!
  
Sounds good to me.
  
Cheers,
  
Bill
  

It's the fitting of the magnets on the loco that worries me.

On many locos, there isn't a great deal of space over the rail area and to fit a magnet to run just 1mm above the rail top would IMHO, require considerable expertise in both fitting the magnet and laying the track - a millimetre isn't very big !

I'm sticking with a very gentle gradient ………………………

Likewise Peter - I would doubt my ability to get it right.  But it would be great to see it working!
Michael

I went with as level as I could make it. I’ve a second layer planned, but they’d never meet (not without a hand anyway!)
I’d love to see pictures of the power base being installed etc. 

  Hi Guys,

It seems that PowerBsse may not be for everyone, but as model locos aren’t man enough to climb modest inclines, they need all the help they can get.

Most of us remember the infamous traction tyres and some may recall ‘’Magnehesion’’ from Scalectric cars of the 70s. PowerBase is a  crossover from the slot cars and seems to be pretty much the only thing out there besides Bullfrog Snot (brave marketing ploy for liquid plastic traction tyres) to help.

I called off the Powerbase starter pack from my Hattons’ trunk today, so will let you know how I get on with it in due course. I also picked up the plywood for the branch baseboards, so I’ll clear the decks and get woodworking.

Bill

  I’ve been remarkably busy on the home front recently, so although I’ve given plenty of thought to the branch, I’ve not put anything down on parchment until this morning. The branch will be capable of independent operation, with a fiddle yard if necessary, although the full story can be told much better with traffic movements to and from the nearby mainline station and with the occasional special service working through from much further afield.

I’ve paid particular attention to that clever mantra, ‘’less is more’’ and have not included lots of track and facilities, settling on just six large radius points, a long, lazy run round and plenty of space between the shed roads for an uncluttered look.




The overall length of the scenic section for the station will be 8 foot / 2.4metres, with the line from the mainline station climbing round the walls of the railway room via a halt. I’ll lay out full size track templates on the baseboard tops and try stock capacity to make sure things fit as I’m imagining in the plan above, which is representative at the moment and will evolve slightly, to make the trackplan look as interesting as it can.

I’m imagining much milk traffic with Siphons, cattle trucks and horse boxes in both directions and mixed goods and coal in the goods yard. A full gas tanker will be parked in order to refill the gas cylinders of coaching stock and I’d like to locate a camping coach somewhere appropriate if it looks right, but maybe by the halt.

I’ll see how the boards look tomorrow.

Be good,

Bill

Hi Bill
I do like the look of that plan. All the boxes ticked without looking cluttered

I am assuming the branch is “ single engine in steam “ ?

Are the coal staithes alongside the stub siding that runs off at an angle alongside the crane?

I think its a great idea measuring everything off before committing……..which of course I didnt do properly so my run around loop is a tad restrictive and I am constantly looking for a place to park the brake van:roll:

Looking forward to the next phase

Best wishes

John

Hi Bill,

Ticks all the requisite  boxes. following John's comment about getting it right before putting t'track t'bed, some observations.

Lots of milk traffic = lots of Siphons. The Highworth Branch would have 3-4 of these prior to road tankers, so if you are planning on 2-4 then the runaround loop needs to be that long, as they went on the end of the train. The Watlington platform had to be extended because of this. Plus there was usually a dedicated section of the platform with vehicle access. The one at Fairford would usually have at least 50 churns in the 1930's.

I think the runaround needs moving to the left, otherwise vans parked for the goods shed will block it.

Most of the GWR  terminus 12" to the foot layouts I have looked at have a goods shed siding or loop separate from the runaround line. That allowed access to a dedicated coal siding separate from the engine or goods sheds.

I see you have a dedicated cattle pen, and a dedicated end loading bay. No side loading bay, or is that done from the main platform or from the GS platform? This was usually separated from the passenger platform by fencing. Horse boxes were of course side loaded, at Lambourn this on a platform next to the cattle pen.

Coaling for engines was usually kept close the the engine shed, water columns/tanks were usually positioned so that a locomotive could be watered on a running line.

Always exceptions of course.

Nigel

Did they have CD's in those days …………………………?   

It looks great to me Bill - with the agreement with Nigel about the goods wagons blocking the run-around.  I'd have the goods shed on a separate siding.  Will there be a station pilot or will all the shunting be carried out by the arriving locomotive ?  If the latter, then your plan would probably work well because there would never be wagons trapping the loco.  It would also lead to some interesting moves if the centre wagon was for this location ………………….

[user=434]John Dew[/user] wrote:

Hi Bill
I do like the look of that plan. All the boxes ticked without looking cluttered

I am assuming the branch is “ single engine in steam “ ?

Are the coal staithes alongside the stub siding that runs off at an angle alongside the crane?

I think its a great idea measuring everything off before committing……..which of course I didnt do properly so my run around loop is a tad restrictive and I am constantly looking for a place to park the brake van:roll:

Looking forward to the next phase

Best wishes

John

Hi and thanks John,

I was thinking of the vast space at my childhood branch at Princetown when I drew the plan, closed just a few years before I arrived in the village in 1959, when alas, the track and most of the buildings had been removed, but thankfully the ballasted track bed remained and was followed for miles across the moor. What struck me then, was the seemingly vast space between the platform and shed roads. 

Princetown was small, serving a captive population in more ways than one in the highest inhabited village in England, which was cold and bleak in winter with guaranteed deep snow. This then, was my inspiration, minus the turntable, but with the addition of a cattle dock.

I’m intending just one engine in steam and yes, there will be a coal merchant just where you’ve anticipated.
 
I did place the large radius turnouts on the boards yesterday to get a better impression, but I really need to print out the Peco templates and stick them to the boards and place building mock-ups and test the stock. Large radius points do take up a lot of space, but medium ones aren’t about yet and don’t really save a lot of space, so an accurate mock up is now essential and is my next task, so more on that soon, together with some trackwork tweeks.

Bill

[user=1632]BCDR[/user] wrote:

Hi Bill,

Ticks all the requisite  boxes. following John's comment about getting it right before putting t'track t'bed, some observations.

Lots of milk traffic = lots of Siphons. The Highworth Branch would have 3-4 of these prior to road tankers, so if you are planning on 2-4 then the runaround loop needs to be that long, as they went on the end of the train. The Watlington platform had to be extended because of this. Plus there was usually a dedicated section of the platform with vehicle access. The one at Fairford would usually have at least 50 churns in the 1930's.

I think the runaround needs moving to the left, otherwise vans parked for the goods shed will block it.

Most of the GWR  terminus 12" to the foot layouts I have looked at have a goods shed siding or loop separate from the runaround line. That allowed access to a dedicated coal siding separate from the engine or goods sheds.

I see you have a dedicated cattle pen, and a dedicated end loading bay. No side loading bay, or is that done from the main platform or from the GS platform? This was usually separated from the passenger platform by fencing. Horse boxes were of course side loaded, at Lambourn this on a platform next to the cattle pen.

Dialing for engines was usually kept close the the engine shed, water columns/tanks were usually positioned so that a locomotive could be watered on a running line.

Always exceptions of course.

Nigel

 Hi Nigel,
   
  Thank you for your useful comments and essential sanity check. I need to acquire many more churns and I’m grateful for the timely reminder to provide vehicle access to the platform. Fortunately I have a couple of Siphons, an Airfix and a Lima, which when re-wheeled and weathered should serve well enough, together with a couple of earlier 6 wheeled kits for the 1920s rota. There will be a fence along the platform edge with the cattle dock, following the line to the station building with vehicle loading gates from the station yard.
  
The conflict with goods traffic and the run round loop would be fine with few passenger services, but that can’t be allowed, as it restricts operational interest, so I’ll change the goods yard access.
  
Loco feed and watering will stay on the shed road and I’ll use my ancient Mike’s Models white metal conical water tower with a coffee stirrer coal platform, not forgetting an ash pit.
  
Bill
  

[user=6]Petermac[/user] wrote:

Did they have CD's in those days …………………………?   

It looks great to me Bill - with the agreement with Nigel about the goods wagons blocking the run-around.  I'd have the goods shed on a separate siding.  Will there be a station pilot or will all the shunting be carried out by the arriving locomotive ?  If the latter, then your plan would probably work well because there would never be wagons trapping the loco.  It would also lead to some interesting moves if the centre wagon was for this location ………………….

Actually Peter, I was going to label the bovine enclose LP, rather than use the modern CD, as livestock pen covers more creatures than cattle dock!

Yes, just one loco in steam, a small tank. My home station Princetown stabled a 45xx small prairie and the shed will cope with small tender engines if a larger visitor needs stabling.

Ah, that reminds me that I need stables for the horses! I need a redraw.

Bill

  I stuck some templates down today to accurately set out and measure the run round loop in the plan above and it will take 5 Collet 57’ coaches or equivalent, e.g. Siphons. Okay so far, in theory at least. However, it looked too cramped to my eyes, which were looking for uncluttered space, so I tried again with the addition of a third 1.2 metre board and it looked much better, so that’s something to think about.

I next turned my thoughts to the goods road access. I first moved the engine shed location to that of the goods shed, then put the goods shed just below the engine shed with a turnout in the loop as the drawing below. This means that a loco with a small to medium sized goods train can head into the lower loop, uncouple it opposite the signal box, run round the rest of the loop, push it into the goods yard, then reverse back out, taking the brake van with it.




I liked the first plan, but this is more prototypical and has a passing resemblance to a mirror imaged Lambourn.

There's still a few details to finalise, including overall dimentions, but it's getting there.

Bill

[user=1814]Longchap[/user] wrote:

 I stuck some templates down today to accurately set out and measure the run round loop in the plan above and it will take 5 Collet 57’ coaches or equivalent, e.g. Siphons. Okay so far, in theory at least. However, it looked too cramped to my eyes, which were looking for uncluttered space, so I tried again with the addition of a third 1.2 metre board and it looked much better, so that’s something to think about.

I next turned my thoughts to the goods road access. I first moved the engine shed location to that of the goods shed, then put the goods shed just below the engine shed with a turnout in the loop as the drawing below. This means that a loco with a small to medium sized goods train can head into the lower loop, uncouple it opposite the signal box, run round the rest of the loop, push it into the goods yard, then reverse back out, taking the brake van with it.




I liked the first plan, but this is more prototypical and has a passing resemblance to a mirror imaged Lambourn.

There's still a few details to finalise, including overall dimentions, but it's getting there.

Bill

:thumbs  I like the Mark II. Bill

Good dividend from the additional board……….it has a much more spacious and realistic feel.

There is a lot of operational flexibility.

The thought occurs that before you commit to "single engine in steam" you may want to consider the possibility of say the branch goods shunting and the arrival/departure of an autotrain/railcar.

This would involve some basic signalling rather than a token but thats one of my reasons for the suggestion. Its a perfect opportunity to test and evaluate working signals ……you would possibly only need a bracket  ……the ground signals would all be cosmetic and the home signals etc off stage.
Its one of my lasting regrets that I didnt install them on my branch……even at this late stage I may be tempted :hmm

Best wishes


 

Okay John, let's go for it  :thumbs

Best,

Bill