I've just told myself that if I wait until I'm really confident about posting this I'll already have been dead a long time. So, after years of pondering and one false start and now having largely completed two levels of bench-work, here is most recent plan for the main station area of my "Haythornthwaite & Westby Tea Railway":
(https://hwtrblog.files.wordpress.com/2018/11/hwtr_v106_town_station-b.jpg?)
Setting: India in the 1920s.
Configuration:
- So-called 'broad gauge' line at the back which heads off to the left (over a dual-gauge bridge) and pretends to go off to the right. In my false start a few years ago I began to use 22.43 mm gauge 'S' scale track to represent Indian gauge (1,676 mm / 5' 6") but now I'm just using OO track. This line will just run two LNER-type Sentinal Cammel steam railcars.
- The main narrow gauge line which heads off to the left (over that dual-gauge bridge) and off to the right toward a causeway and eventually another station. Only passenger trains will stop here. Tea trains deliver from the left and head to a terminal beyond the causeway.
The board shown is 5.5 m long.
What do we think? I'm keen to get constructive criticism.
Looks good to me. I like the idea of a dual-gauge bridge (a dual-gauge anything, in fact). Maybe stagger the loco sheds a bit if you want to avoid too big a 'lump' of buildings? (And maybe brace yourself for comments about how rare turntables were on n-g lines...)
David.
David,
I like your enthusiasm for dual-gauge anythings! I'll be showing the bridge configuration soon. Thanks for the excellent point about the 'lump' of buildings. One option could be to forget about the story that the broad gauge railway provided coal for the narrow gauge railway. This would open up space but I do like the coaling idea. Another option I just thought of would be an opposite approach: one shed serving both railways.
I'm ready to defend the turntable - both from those who say they were rare (which doesn't bother me) and those who say they are too hard to build (which inspires me).
I still have to think about how my customers approach the station - if from the back of the layout the main building should probably be there. The box I've marked could just be a broad platform.
Finally the idea of the mainline going under a Mughul (the spelling on my plan is wrong) fort might be a bit far-fetched...
If approach to the platform was from the front, passengers for both lines could "wander" across the Narrow Gauge lines- very Indian continent laid back way I think! :)
I use a turntable at my narrow gauge station, so go for it! Although it helps to have a reason, such as squeezing a quart into a pint pot, so needing to put the loco shed at right angles to the track!
Tim
A dual-gauge loco shed - even better!
As an alternative to the turntable, you could go for a small turning triangle instead a bit like this one (on the Soller line in Mallorca):
(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4855/46060355831_b0e3dc92a2_z.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2dbcn54)turning triangle near Bunyola (https://flic.kr/p/2dbcn54) by clayliner (https://www.flickr.com/photos/92012779@N06/), on Flickr
- but to save space you could use the curve already planned at 'urban scene' as one side of the triangle, and the other leg might even disappear into the back of the shed...
Just a thought!
David.
Thinking about the turntable / turning triangle idea...
Turntables on 'colonial' lines seem to have been reasonably common (evens out wear on the longer runs associated with these lines). BUT often in these situations land and labour was cheap and if there was the space available then building a triangle works out cheaper than buying in (i.e. importing from the UK) a turntable, though in a mountainous area it may be cheaper to import a turntable compared to creating enough flat land to lay tracks to form a triangle.
From a modelling point of view a turntable is easier to fit on to the average 2' wide baseboard. Triangles take up more space and also need some clever electronic / switching to run a loco around it - perhaps that's why I only recall ever seeing one modeled in 009...
Quote from: JulienW on November 27, 2018, 13:23
From a modelling point of view a turntable is easier to fit on to the average 2' wide baseboard. Triangles take up more space and also need some clever electronic / switching to run a loco around it - perhaps that's why I only recall ever seeing one modeled in 009...
It's not that tricky if the triangle is only used for turning locos, and therefore has a dead-end. The turnout leading to the dead end needs to have insulated joiners on all four rails leading into it, and the dead-end is then powered through a DPDT switch connected to the point.
The Dutton Bay Tramway has had a triangle since the first station was constructed back in the 1980s. I know of, and have operated on, at least five other layouts with triangles. But that's here in Australia where they are not uncommon in the real world - where the space required is cheaper than building a turntable.
Thanks for that John as I'd forgotten the DBT had a triangle - the one I was thinking of was on Simon Coward's Isle of Mudd but I don't think it got exhibited much.
Come to think of it that one was also only used for turning locos too.
(https://hwtrblog.files.wordpress.com/2018/12/hwtr_v108-town-station1.jpg?)
Thanks everybody.
I've made three main changes to the plan for my station area.
First of all the board now has more front to back depth. This follows successful negotiations with my partner about the allocation of space in my flat - negotiations which weren't that difficult because as she lives over a kilometre away she doesn't have full voting rights here.
Secondly, some of the increased space allowed me to slip in an inglenook shunting puzzle (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inglenook_Sidings (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inglenook_Sidings)). I will have to think about how to make this look as if it belongs. One thing I've worked out about inglenooks is that the two points don't have to touch each other, which I think helps.
Thirdly I've solved the issue David made about the narrow and broad gauge sheds being lumped together by replacing the way the broad gauge line pretended to leave to the right with the broad gauge shed; in other words the broad gauge line now terminates there.
Quote from: JulienW on November 28, 2018, 08:45
Thanks for that John as I'd forgotten the DBT had a triangle - the one I was thinking of was on Simon Coward's Isle of Mudd but I don't think it got exhibited much.
Come to think of it that one was also only used for turning locos too.
Julien, Don't forget Avyn-A-Llyin also has a triangle from the running line to the pier in regular use. Wiring is simple.
Opps - I had!
Sorry Andy...
Two things I'd like to see [who does he think he is?!!] are:
- maybe tilt the loco shed through perhaps 30deg. so that it's not so parallel with the edges of the board, and so that it's easier to see the front and what's inside, and
- not everything being on the flat - though admittedly it's not possible to tell from a simple plan. How about the broad-gauge line rising a little from the bridge on the left to a slightly higher level, which puts trains on this line on a bit of a pedestal and maybe leads to a split-level station arrangement for added interest?
Only thinking aloud - it's looking good as it is.
David.
Edit: I've just seen that the railway now has an upper level, so maybe the second comment is redundant. Where do they join up (if at all)?
(https://hwtrblog.files.wordpress.com/2018/12/hwtr_v111-town-station.jpg?w=900)
Thanks David, this is exactly the type of feedback I can benefit from.
You wrote:
- maybe tilt the loco shed through perhaps 30deg. so that it's not so parallel with the edges of the board, and so that it's easier to see the front and what's inside, and
- not everything being on the flat - though admittedly it's not possible to tell from a simple plan. How about the broad-gauge line rising a little from the bridge on the left to a slightly higher level, which puts trains on this line on a bit of a pedestal and maybe leads to a split-level station arrangement for added interest?
For your first point; I was only able to tilt the narrow gauge shed 7
Hi Tom,
Can I add something, which may or may not be relevant please?
Hope this isn't party pooper territory after all your planning work, but I couldn't help noticing that the headshunt from the broad gauge station run-round loop, top right of the plan, goes straight into the loco shed (unless I am reading something wrong here!)
If I'm right in my assessment, then I think there may be a solution which would also provide more visibility for the broad gauge stock:
The station platform is quite broad, so if you can narrow the right side of it a bit, ie make it more of a wedge shape than a rectangle, then leave the loco shed where it is, but the broad gauge platform road and loop will swivel down by 20 or 30 degrees, which will provide space for a point to go off to the loco shed (even more of an exciting challenge, make the existing loop point a double slip!) and the headshunt to gently curve down to the right, terminating somewhere near where you currently have the 100.5cm marking, to be specific somewhere around where the .5 is!
My own opinion on this is that it may provide better visibility, as well as giving more manoeuvring space for the broad gauge. "Other opinions are available" and outlandish as it may seem, I have sometimes/often been known to be completely wrong!
Mick
Hi Mick,
Yes you've interpreted my current plan properly.
Thanks for this suggestion - which I'm pondering.
I don't know if my broad gauge stock needs more visibility. It will only be a pair of steam rail cars. I'm even questioning the logic of having a broad gauge shed at all because as this station is the end of a fairly minor line, wouldn't the rail cars belong to some more important facility at the other end? ... but I do want a shed so I'll have a shed anyway.
I suppose the passing loop doesn't need to be as long as I have made it. If I made it shorter there could be a bit of straight track before the shed? I'm wondering whether this would serve the purposes you have in mind in a bit less contrived way. Or put another way, given that I'll just have rail cars, would they need much of a head shunt at all? Now I think about it, the passing loop is really more to allow one to arrive before the other leaves than it is for anything to pass anything.
Please keep your ideas coming!
Something rather different from the station in Bagan, but an example of a split-level / dual gauge station (sadly no more). It's the station in Guardiola, in Catalonia:
(https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5575/29952208494_9be202bf01_z.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/MCLU4Q)Guardiola 2 (https://flic.kr/p/MCLU4Q) by clayliner (https://www.flickr.com/photos/92012779@N06/), on Flickr
and in that old photo you can see the broad-er gauge yard on the right. You can also just see it in this picture:
(https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5733/29952208694_32bde1fc37_z.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/MCLU8h)Guardiola 5 (https://flic.kr/p/MCLU8h) by clayliner (https://www.flickr.com/photos/92012779@N06/), on Flickr
which is taken from the far end, and shows the n-g Asland Cement Railway at a higher level on the other side of the station building.
This is the same scene in more recent times, taken from more or less the same place as the previous one:
(https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5515/29953035704_c88cf2d699_z.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/MCR8Y5)Guardiola estacio 3 (https://flic.kr/p/MCR8Y5) by clayliner (https://www.flickr.com/photos/92012779@N06/), on Flickr
Although I said 'sadly no more' as you can see the bulding itself has been lovingly preserved (it's now the Tourist Information Centre) although the trains have (inevitably) been replaced by cars.
There are probably other examples of two-level stations - the other one which springs to mind is at Hayle (GWR) where I think the St Ives branch line is on a slightly lower level to the main line.
David.