A rural Sussex BLT

[DLT]

I would curve that one back in to the scenic area more, AND incorporate the curve into the fiddle yard.  As others have said, that corner is wasted space; use as much of the available area as possible.

Its starting to look a bit like Highworth now:  See Here  Or a sort of Hemyock/Highworth crossbreed.

 

If its a loop & two sidings sort of light railway, in that sort of location, here's a VERY rough sketch.  More curvature, siding going behind the station (easier road access).  Could have a goods lockup alongside the siding, or on the platform.  Cattle dock on platform end (Highworth) or opposite (Hemyock) depending on access (no need for a separate siding)  Industrial building is beside river, so COULD be an old mill converted/extended.  I've added a water tower next to the river bridge, with pump house to draw water from the river (as Mid Suffolk Light Rly)

Hope this helps!

All the best, Dave.

Edited April 25, 2023 by DLT

[C126]

On 24/04/2023 at 08:27, Nearholmer said:

PS: Blow me! Looking at satellite view on google, the tea garden still exists!

 

My partner and I visited the Tea Garden several years ago one glorious after-noon, via @phil_sutters 's circular 'bus, and would recommend it, if only to support a declining Victorian business.  There is an A5 history booklet published, the cover of which I can post here when I get home.  Were I a walking man, I think it would be a good 'target' for a walk across the Downs.

 

https://www.explorewealden.co.uk/food-and-drink/litlington-tea-gardens-p1407941

 

Unfortunately, the 'web site' is just a Face-book page.

 

P.s., bother; am I getting confused...?

 

https://thewishingwellwilmington.co.uk/

 

Sorry.

Edited April 25, 2023 by C126
Add web-page/new tea-garden.

[C126]

It is Litlington.

 

 

Sorry for confusion.

[SR71]

42 minutes ago, C126 said:

It is Litlington.

 

 

Sorry for confusion.

 

Huge portions and excellent cake. One of our favourites!

[DLT]

If you haven't already seen it, lots of luvverly pictures of the Highworth branch here:  Highworth Historical Society

[dseagull]

9 hours ago, DLT said:

I would curve that one back in to the scenic area more, AND incorporate the curve into the fiddle yard.  As others have said, that corner is wasted space; use as much of the available area as possible.

Its starting to look a bit like Highworth now:  See Here  Or a sort of Hemyock/Highworth crossbreed.

 

If its a loop & two sidings sort of light railway, in that sort of location, here's a VERY rough sketch.  More curvature, siding going behind the station (easier road access).  Could have a goods lockup alongside the siding, or on the platform.  Cattle dock on platform end (Highworth) or opposite (Hemyock) depending on access (no need for a separate siding)  Industrial building is beside river, so COULD be an old mill converted/extended.  I've added a water tower next to the river bridge, with pump house to draw water from the river (as Mid Suffolk Light Rly)

Hope this helps!

All the best, Dave.

Thanks Dave. Do quite like that, and I can certainly see the appeal of going for more of an L shape, however I wanted to keep the bulk of the layout on one side of the shed really.

 

Highworth is certainly an attractive inspiration though, a bit of reading there I feel!

 

The industrial building being an old converted/extended mill is very appealing. The flour mill at Horsebridge mentioned earlier was a water mill.

 

Could always move the station building along slightly (the is a visual gap between the cottages and school) and put the cattle dock between the platform road and the goods siding. Will have another virtual doodle.

 

I am yet to sample the delights of cake in Litlington. Now that the football season is over (don't ask.... 😢 ), a summer visit may be in order.

 

 

Edited April 25, 2023 by dseagull

[garethashenden]

I wouldn't really classify Dave's last drawing as an L shape, at least not any more than the previous ones. If the layout in on one wall and the fiddle yard on another, I suppose that is an L. But the difference here is that the scenery runs all the way to the corner, giving you an extra foot or so for scenery. Plenty on space for the church!

[dseagull]

16 hours ago, garethashenden said:

I wouldn't really classify Dave's last drawing as an L shape, at least not any more than the previous ones. If the layout in on one wall and the fiddle yard on another, I suppose that is an L. But the difference here is that the scenery runs all the way to the corner, giving you an extra foot or so for scenery. Plenty on space for the church!

Yes, it is a balancing act; the extra foot would be useful, but I'd set myself a limit of 8' in length for space reasons, and whilst I can see there would be benefits, I think I'm happy with the dimensions given.

 

I did have a go at moving the cattle pens, as below;

 

Edited April 26, 2023 by dseagull

[phil_sutters]

Here is one view of the Exceat barns, now used as the visitor centre for the Seven Sisters Country Park, and some other characterful buildings from around the area.

Edited April 26, 2023 by phil_sutters
Additional photos

[Nick C]

You can't get more traditionally Sussex than those - especially the second, flint and tile-hanging on the same building...

Edited April 27, 2023 by Nick C

[dseagull]

Thanks Phil; Some really nice examples there of the sort of buildings I want.

 

Now to work out how to best represent flint... - there are commercial offerings for the knapped kind, but less so for the whole stone kind, e.g.

 

[Nick Holliday]

On 27/04/2023 at 09:31, Nick C said:

You can't get more traditionally Sussex than those - especially the second, flint and tile-hanging on the same building...

I suspect that the second one is actually built using chalkstone, exploiting hard veins of chalk, and not uncommonly used in the south east.  Not hard enough to do the whole frontage, requiring brick quoins as per the picture. The blocks were generally larger than any flints, and could be dressed to give a relatively smooth surface.

 

[Nick Holliday]

16 hours ago, dseagull said:

Thanks Phil; Some really nice examples there of the sort of buildings I want.

 

Now to work out how to best represent flint... - there are commercial offerings for the knapped kind, but less so for the whole stone kind, e.g.

 

Does this work?

https://peco-uk.com/products/cobblestone-walling

 

[Schooner]

On 26/04/2023 at 18:42, dseagull said:

I'd set myself a limit of 8' in length for space reasons

Erm...you've set yourself a limit of 10' with an arbitrary scenic cutoff at 8'. Not the same thing at all, and acknowledging this gives you a lot more flexibility.

 

You might still get to the same answer, but you'll have learned more which is always a good thing :)

 

Using that space, and a British Finescale B7 to start the loop off nice and gently, turns

into something like

which is a very different prospect and would likely look much more like a rural Sussex BLT.

 

Tightest radius is comfortably over 2', and that is through the slip and/or inner radius of the curved turnout. Otherwise it's 2'10" on the approach curve (using the largest possible Settrack), and then 5' through the BF B7 LH turnout and Peco long Y which bracket the loop. Very relaxed by small model BLT standards = good looking and running.

 

3' platform, 3' loop and about 8' of combined siding length in grey. Would that be enough to handle your desired traffic?

 

If it were me I'd pop the industry on the other river bank, as shown in 'white'. The extra scene would create extra perceived depth to the station area (perhaps aided with a little forced perspective), and having it served off the spur increases your play value from the trackplan: traffic for/from the industry needs marshalled and then a little trip working to get it there, which also justfies why it's being loco-shunted at such a quiet location in the first place :) 

 

What was in industrial spur from the station could be deleted for more village/non-rail industry or perhaps used for mileage, with the 'long back road' at the front of the layout then being used for coal and empties storage. There's room for an independent cattle dock, or they could simply use the goods/end-loading dock.

 

The same approach could be applied to both @Nearholmer and @DLT's charming plans to unlock their full potential, and the full potential of your entire modelling space.

 

Anyway, the point is that looking at the entire space you have available and working out how that can best be used to get you want you want is a) useful and b) fun!

 

Hope this helps,

 

Schooner

 

PS. Just in case it's useful, after a quick bit of playing trains in my head, I got to something like

which starts to look busy enough to be 'proper' and better able to handle the too-heavy traffic we modellers inevitably run, and gives a lot of shunting options if that's your thing, or a couple of different moves to pick up/drop off pre-marshalled rakes if it's not :)

 

It's a little awkward having mileage and good sheds on opposite sides of the station, requiring separate road access, but far from unheard of. Anyway, just a thought :)

Edited April 28, 2023 by Schooner

[Nearholmer]

I really don’t think you don’t need a separate coal yard/siding, given the likely size of population to be served.

 

[DLT]

Starting to look a bit too "busy" again to me.  As the scenic plan is for a road along the back, access would be that side, and a separate goods siding at the front would be most unlikely.  Additionally, a poverty stricken light railway would have to make do with the minimum of land purchase for its yard space, and most likely would not sprawl so much.

Otherwise I like these ideas!

 

[Nearholmer]

Here is a picture of The Dyke, showing the extensive goods facilities.

 

 

Now, l’m sure that Litlington could drum up a bit more trade, but there were plenty of places that managed without a goods shed, having simply a goods lock-up, for which there was a standard LBSCR design, and plenty where everything was dealt with on one siding.

 

 

Edited April 28, 2023 by Nearholmer

[dseagull]

7 hours ago, Nick Holliday said:

Does this work?

https://peco-uk.com/products/cobblestone-walling

 

It is certainly the best of the plastic options, yes. I've used it before for one of the versions that didn't get very far!

[Schooner]

2 hours ago, Nearholmer said:

I really don’t think you don’t need a separate coal yard/siding, given the likely size of population to be served.

On 19/04/2023 at 00:01, dseagull said:

...named for, if geographically ignorant of, Litlington...

As with the shed, it's easier to plan for a siding and not include it. I've no idea about local needs, nor @dseagull shunting/traffic wants, and the plan doesn't dictate possibilities! Typically yards handled mileage traffic, mineral traffic (both in opens) and van traffic; typically modellers enjoy having individual locations for each of these so they can play at making and breaking goods trains. Nowhere is it written it has to be so, but it's nice to prove that there's space for the approach if desired.

 

2 hours ago, DLT said:

Additionally, a poverty stricken light railway...

...which this explicitly isn't, unless I missed something when catching up with the thread earlier? 

 

2 hours ago, DLT said:

Starting to look a bit too "busy" again to me.

Indeed, yet for all I agree

could be said to be lacklustre. It also lacks the Ricean 'three-way and single-slip' heart of including a siding towards the front of the layout. I find it at risk of having too much baseboard to fill, with all the railway-related features being at the back and facing away from the operator. Great for a model village as the main event front and centre with the station as a bit of scenic interest in the background; crap the other way around.

 

This could be nicely rebalanced by curling the platform into the front-left corner, as per your lovely sketch, and by a dozen other methods, but just as 'bigger isn't always better', neither is smaller. 

 

However, the point really is not the trackplan - which was meant to be a fairly straight copy of our host's original idea - but to show that by not arbitrarily deciding a large chunk of available space is unavailable for scenic development one has a lot more scope to play, and one's toys have a lot more space to breathe.

 

The 3' radius approach curve is possible if using a cassette for stock storage/fiddleyard access, nothing to do with siding arrangement.

 

On 25/04/2023 at 22:09, dseagull said:

...however I wanted to keep the bulk of the layout on one side of the shed really.

Even if you went for a scenically-disguised traverser, which is about as width-hungry as it gets (but you gain length, often a really good trade):

 

I think it's fair to say the bulk of the layout is still on one side of your 10' x 8' (I hope I remembered that right?!) shed.

Edited April 28, 2023 by Schooner

[phil_sutters]

I thought that the starting point for this line was the extraction of shingle and there seems to be no actual connection to the coast. Why would Litlington have grown large enough to warrant its own branch without a significant industrial undertaking? Other industries could perhaps include lime kilns or, if Friston Forest had been planted more than 50 years earlier than it was, timber. The size of freight facilities doesn't seem to indicate a large output of materials. 

[dseagull]

Many thanks @Schooner , more food for thought there. Shed is 12' x 8' and despite checking the website, I can't find the internal dimensions.

 

I suppose I could change things around and have a U shape, with the scenic section on the end wall. Another rabbit hole to explore!

 

I do fear we are getting away from my original 'spec' - something small, with a small amount of detailed stock. I can see the benefits of adding more scenic area - I just don't really want to...

[Chimer]

Yup.  Think we have to accept the OP knows broadly how he wants to use his space, and keep any further suggestions within the 8' x 2'2" constraint!

[Schooner]

10 minutes ago, dseagull said:

more food for thought

That's all any of this is :) You're in the rare, strong and all-round enviable position of having both more space and wanting less railway than allowed for!

 

FWIW, my layout is also based of one of @Harlequin's designs; rigidly refusing to add more railway whilst upping the footprint, turning it from a 'minimum space shunting puzzle' into a 'near-scale model of a small prototype' with little hassle. It's lovely to meet a like mind :)

Edited April 28, 2023 by Schooner

[DLT]

2 hours ago, Schooner said:

...which this explicitly isn't, unless I missed something when catching up with the thread earlier? 

Or maybe I missed something?  Or jumped to conclusions?

[puck]

How about a bit of Rice?

 

http://i558.photobucket.com/albums/ss28/doctordalek2/GAT001_zpsmntfj1ha.jpg