Basuto Quay - GWR 1908 in 7mm scale

[Rivercider]

18 hours ago, magmouse said:

 

Thinking about it, I don't need a fish market - just a justification for fish wagons, and somewhere to load them.

 

 

 

Nick.

Agreed. Brixham station handled a lot of fish traffic, and the station was well above the harbour and fish market.

 

Charlestown is an example of a harbour where the Pier House Hotel was built in an exposed position above the harbour mouth (though of course there was never a standard gauge railway there),

 

cheers

[magmouse]

Thanks, Kevin - Brixham and Charlestown are both places I have been looking at for inspiration.

 

Nick.

[Schooner]

Are there two things at play here?

• A model railway, in a spare room with exhibition potential, for @magmouse's enjoyment and escape
• Basuto Quay, a real (enough) part of Netherport on the East Dorest coast as it was in 1908, and the GWR

One should never cross streams, I'm told, so: Do they matter equally? Is feedback on both equally useful? In terms of time prioritisation, which 'needs' worked out first?

 

I could only really start modelling, on either layout, once I had a touchstone in the real world. I'm not clever enough to work out all the questions railway modelling (especially pre-Grouping) throws up, let alone the answers, so needed to be able to get a sense of a time and place before I would work out what packs of embossed wall sheet etc to order! But by that point I had already given up on thinking of either as 'just' a model railway - I'm not into it enough for that alone to take me attention away from other hobbies  important housework/actual work! Working out something coherent between the two, so when I look at my little model I can see the whole railway network it belongs to, and the people and businesses which rely on it, was essential for me to progress either research or modelling.

 

We're all different, so would it be worth sharing where you see yourself/the layout in relation to this, Nick?

 

I'm willing to bet there's a large chunk of 'the layout as a theatre stage' (which I'm also well behind!), for which a lot of other considerations can be dropped. On the flip side, your wagons are exquisite and show considerable effort to put them in the correct historical context - still the best roping on RMWeb! In this case, a first-principles look at Netherport would be useful for all of us; and from there a layout can be developed which suits the space and practical considerations of a layout build. Probably frustrating, but if it's a fun process then what's the rush?! 

 

:)

 

 

Edited June 14 by Schooner

[magmouse]

21 minutes ago, Schooner said:

We're all different, so would it be worth sharing where you see yourself/the layout in relation to this, Nick?

Yes, I can do that, in the next day or two. There is more to the Netherport concept worked out than I have yet shared here, so I am happy to say a bit more about it. You are right too to point to the tension between the wagon building, driven in part by an enjoyment of getting the smaller details correct, and the slightly more relaxed approach to the layout, where I am mixing and matching things that I like for particular aesthetic effects. I’ve also got some thoughts on the relationship between model railways and theatre, as you hint…

 

More on this anon, and also the results of an initial foray into Templot, which are ‘interesting’.

 

Nick.

[Chrisbr]

5 hours ago, magmouse said:

also the results of an initial foray into Templot, which are ‘interesting’.

Not sure I've heard that description for it....

 

It is a great tool, but you have to think about things in the way Martyn designed it, to make it work for you and that can be a challenge - certainly if you've just been learning another tool. I would highly recommend working through the various tutorial videos available to understand the basics before trying to do anything related to this plan... there are also plenty of people who can help both here and on Templot Forum which is the place to go for advice and answers to "how do I" and "can Templot...?"

[magmouse]

Thanks, Chris. The 'interesting' comment was more about what it revealed about what I can and can't fit into the available space, rather than the experience of using Templot. Certainly Templot works very differently to most other software, but I have been working through Martyn's guides and gradually understanding the principles behind it. The 2mm Association videos will be next, unless someone has another suggestion?

 

The work in Templot I have done so far is only to gauge what will fit into the space - I'll start again when it comes to do the proper plan (and pick your brains extensively about Edwardian GWR track!).

 

Nick.

[magmouse]

Ahead of the promised outline of the Netherport concept, and how it informs my ideas for Basuto Quay, I thought I would report on the outcome of a bit of work in Templot. In starting to sketch out the current ideas for the track layout in Templot, two things emerged - one good, one bad:

 

The good -

I think I can slightly increase the size of the cassettes, working within a space of 110cm, instead of 100cm. The critical factor here is how the key dimensions add up from left to right:

• length of fiddle yard, to accommodate the planned train length plus loco
• the length of the point at the start of the loop, up until the position where the two tracks are far enough apart to allow stock to pass (the fouling point)
• The length of a train without a loco (that the loco will be running round)
• The length of the cross-over at the other end of the loop
• The length of a loco

My work in Templot suggests I can increase the train+loco length to about 103cm, with a 105-110cm allowance for the fiddle yard (which has to be a bit more, as the cassettes need to be slightly longer than the stock they hold, to allow for some kind of end barrier so stock doesn't roll off). This gives me one more wagon in a goods train than I was expecting - 5 rather than 4. That's huge in terms of the visual impression of a train. It may also bring some other options for passenger stock, but I haven't looked at that yet.

 

The bad -

It's clear that there isn't room for the road to the goods yard/quay to come from the loop, and cross the main - everything ends up much too far to the left. This track layout was identified up-thread as good prototype practice (avoiding a facing point on the main), as well as a visually interesting feature. Fitting in the short spur to the side and end loading dock was also problematical - possible, but very crowded.

 

The yard road will have to come off the main, by the end of the platform - whether prototypical or not. In any case, given this is a terminus station and speeds will be low, I wonder if even with the aversion to facing points that was prevalent in my period, the simplicity and reduced cost of coming off the main would have been preferred.

 

The ugly?

Which leads us to a revised, simpler scheme:

 

Changes:

• Reworked goods yard and quay - one route to the fiddle yard as the line to the Hunt & Son works, the quay siding, and a siding to act as a reception road for Hunt & Son (GWR loco delivers, works loco collects, or vice versa). A single slip saves space in this layout. The Hunt & Son road acts as a headhunt for the quay.
• Station platform moved towards the back by a couple of cm, and the buildings at the rear reduced in depth to accommodate, allowing space for...
• ...the short road off the crossover becomes the end and side loading dock, enough for a fish van/wagon, siphon, horse box, or similar (thanks to Phil @Harlequin for that insight).
• The Dovetail warehouse (removals and storage, "Express shipping to London and the Continent") is now in the left hand row of buildings, so the back siding could also be used to park a covered wagon, or a wagon with a lift van in the Dovetail livery. Pantechnicons get off-loaded at the end loading dock, of course.
• Hunt & Son now occupies the area bottom left, behind the fiddle yard/cassette space. Although drawn as a single block, I see this as several buildings, higher at the left to mask the exit of the Hunt & Son siding, getting Lower towards the right to allow one to see over into the yard space beyond. Gaps between the buildings, or perhaps an arch allowing access into a small yard area at the front will give glimpses of a train going along the siding behind, when looking from eye level.
• The Manning Wardle K class works loco will collect wagons 2 at a time, which will fit on the small cassettes. The back of the LH Hunt & Son building will be cut away to allow the cassette to swing round, slid forward and be switched over.

Even with a significant reduction in track, this plan still delivers almost all that the earlier iterations did - the only loss is the cut-away goods shed.

 

As always, thoughts, suggestions for improvement or identifications of snafus are welcome!

 

Nick.

[Schooner]

What if you had, from the RHS loop spur, had the turnout for the Dovetail road first, and then the loco release crossover? This would likely limit how many wagons could be shunted from loop to the siding, but that might not be an issue.

 

In 00 Peco, this would be via a 24 crossing but you have more flexible options...which is handy, as I'm finding Peco's O Gauge track geometery unhelpfully restrictive!

[magmouse]

9 minutes ago, Schooner said:

What if you had, from the RHS loop spur, had the turnout for the Dovetail road first, and then the loco release crossover? This would likely limit how many wagons could be shunted from loop to the siding, but that might not be an issue.

 

Not sure if I have understood what you are proposing correctly, but you can't move the the crossover to the left, because you need the length of the loop as it is to run round.

 

There is this slightly unexpected solution, which ensures you only have one facing point:

 

https://85a.uk/templot/archive/topics/topic_1923.php

 

Nick.

[Harlequin]

I don't see a problem with taking the kickback sidings off the main passenger rated line. True, railway companies tried to avoid facing points where they reasonably could but they would use them when they had to.

 

As you say, the risks are much reduced in a terminal station and facing point locks and correct signalling should make them safe enough. And modellers' license applies!

 

[Chrisbr]

20 minutes ago, magmouse said:

There is this slightly unexpected solution, which ensures you only have one facing point:

Ooow that looks fun... 

[Dave John]

Hmm,  Essex. Though interestingly it is laid on interleaved sleepers. 

[Miss Prism]

7 hours ago, magmouse said:

There is this slightly unexpected solution, which ensures you only have one facing point:

 

Not uncommon on the GWR, e.g. Moretonhampstead.

 

Edited June 15 by Miss Prism
spellink

[37Oban]

11 hours ago, magmouse said:

 

Not sure if I have understood what you are proposing correctly, but you can't move the the crossover to the left, because you need the length of the loop as it is to run round.

 

There is this slightly unexpected solution, which ensures you only have one facing point:

 

https://85a.uk/templot/archive/topics/topic_1923.php

 

Nick.

I once made this formation as a demonstration piece in N gauge many years ago.  Very useful, and it worked well, but , unfortunatly, I had no future use for it so I disposed of it.  It would make a talking point for Basuto Quay if you could fit it in, and it's not as difficult to build as it appears at first glance!

 

Roja

[Harlequin]

FYI: I was thinking that pushing the passenger line further back would give passengers more direct access to the steamers behind. In my mind's eye I can picture quite a fancy station building to help attract the crowds. (Octagonal with a cupola, perhaps, to echo the lighthouse?) It would be one of the row of background buildings with later more mundane structures alongside.

 

I found that having the main line run along the spine of the quay/dock/jetty/pier (not sure what the maritime term is for this structure), made it look more deliberate - as if the "pier" was built for the main line steamer terminus and other things were added afterwards.

 

Furthermore, running the passenger line further back allowed the pier to be slimmed down, showing more water at the front of the scene so that it "reads" better as a pier and allows the long siding along the front of the "pier", a very common feature of docks, and a great place to park wagons and admire them!

 

Edited June 15 by Harlequin

[Schooner]

A quick thought on basic format:

 

 

 

Oh, and for the cutaway shed, how about an in-build covered fish market - between the loop and quayside siding, perhaps?

 

FWIW, a morning mug of coffee and a little think about practicalities:

• cassette access - not bad. Am I right in thinking you're planning to make these rather than buy?
  • scenically it could masked by having the cassette walls of clear plastic dressed up as railings with nets hung to dry/for repairs eg
  • 
  • 
  • 
  • I see the old quay being parallel to the 'old quay buildings' and visually distinct in wall construction and surface to the railway quay/pier
• For how much depth you need for a convincing fish quay scene (for tadpole, purposes of) I'd suggest not a lot:
  • 
• For how well boats can be made to scale, assuming they're half-decent models to start with
  • 
  • same same but different!
• There should be an end-loading dock next to the loco release, as per previous, but I got bored of fighting turnout geometery 😇
• Hunt&Son siding does extend beyond the 500mm uncoupling limit...but do you actually need to uncouple wagons from the 'Wardle? 

 

Anyway, back to the coalface!

Edited June 16 by Schooner
Pics added

[magmouse]

In response to @Schooner's request for more information about the backstory and concept for Basuto Quay (and the larger idea of Netherport), I have written a new blog post covering this.

 

Please put comments about the overall concept and related modelling philosophy in the comments section of the blog post, and keep the discussion of the Basuto Quay layout plan here - thanks.

 

Nick.

[magmouse]

Although this thread has gone quiet, preparatory work for Basuto Quay has been continuing. The front half of the house now has a new roof, with better insulation and a replacement Velux window, and the room has been redecorated, so it is now possible to reveal the Field of Play:

 

 

Everything on the left hand side is stuff that needs to stay in the room, under the layout. On the right, the stuff nearest the camera will be going, leaving room for an operator or two. The chest of drawers, with bedding on top under the 'London Olympics 2012' towel, will be staying - the width of the layout is designed to allow access to the cupboard beyond.

 

The next steps, in terms of planning, are for me to learn more about Templot, so I can confidently build the track layout in it and test the geometry, before bringing that back into Fusion 360 to visualise the current ideas - it will then come back here for further discussion and input from you all!

 

Thanks for everyone's thoughts and suggestions so far - it's been invaluable.

 

Nick.

[KingEdwardII]

On 15/06/2024 at 00:21, Dave John said:

it is laid on interleaved sleepers.

Just imagine the faff if you had to replace one of those!!

[Schooner]

Sorry, work's nuts atm so any down time is spent being unconcious but whilst topping up on caffine...

 

Loved the blog post, looks good, coherent and lots of scope for fun and evocative modelling :)

 

Crucially, I can't see anything that would constrain a trackplan. Should be equally viable to design a modelled section of the quay and join it up with railway as design the tracks and accrete the quay features around it. Your spare room is your oyster!

[magmouse]

11 minutes ago, Schooner said:

Crucially, I can't see anything that would constrain a trackplan.

 

The key (quay?) constraint is the length of the available space, from the wall just to the left of where the photo was taken, to the far end of the room. I discussed this in my post on June 14th. The Templot plan is critical because the length of turnouts makes all the difference to how long a train can be. Modelling early 20th century GWR turns out to have hidden upsides - the characteristic loose-healed switches used by the company at that time are just a little shorter than other types... 

 

Nick.

[Schooner]

Thought 2b: space might dictate some 'complex' turnouts to get access to everything. I'd lean into this - for sure long riverside quays were often very simple*, but late-Victorian developments (particularly to access new-build piers or deep water quays) were not. Scenically a single 3-way (eg) is fairly simple to mask, and rail-top ballast takes out a good chunk of the visual impact of track...in 4mm at least. Joining you for the 7mm adventure!

 

Slightly harder to make, perhaps, but I doubt beyond your skillset and/or perhaps could be outsourced whilst you build the rest. Plenty options all round :)

 

Righty oh, back to the coalface...

 

 

*A single long siding with a loop at either end would be pretty typical.

[magmouse]

I'm up for some more complex track work, if justified by the situation (and it helps maximise train lengths). Building track in S7 is all new to me, and I only ever did a couple of turnouts in P4 many moons ago, but I am in touch with some S7 folk who are doing amazing work on Victorian and Edwardian GWR track work, including three-ways with a mind-boggling array of special chairs needed. The quayside stuff might be buried in stone sets, anyway, so good old copper-clad sleepering would do nicely!

 

Nick.

[Schooner]

Thought 3: All previous suggestions involve a cassette space on the layout proper. Is this necessary?

 

Have you considered what options would be available by having it in the operating space, with the connection to the layout on the operator side?

Pros:

• Significantly more scenic space and trackplan flexibility
• Unfettered cassette access, including much easier cassette exchange.
• Possibility of flipping the layout, as cupboard access would be possible even if the cassette connection is at the RHS of the layout. 

Cons:

• More effort to build, and to use
• Possibly less secure
• Seems to freak people out a bit

 

As you'll have seen, in 4mm I just use a (latching) folding bracket, c.300mm long, to support Intentio cassettes; in 7mm a slightly more substantial arrangment with the layout connection bolted on and the 'free' end supported on a camera tripod.

 

Just a thought, might help unlock some new options :)

 

 

 

 

 

[magmouse]

9 hours ago, Schooner said:

Thought 3: All previous suggestions involve a cassette space on the layout proper. Is this necessary?

 

Have you considered what options would be available by having it in the operating space, with the connection to the layout on the operator side?

Pros:

• Significantly more scenic space and trackplan flexibility
• Unfettered cassette access, including much easier cassette exchange.
• Possibility of flipping the layout, as cupboard access would be possible even if the cassette connection is at the RHS of the layout. 

Cons:

• More effort to build, and to use
• Possibly less secure
• Seems to freak people out a bit

 

As you'll have seen, in 4mm I just use a (latching) folding bracket, c.300mm long, to support Intentio cassettes; in 7mm a slightly more substantial arrangment with the layout connection bolted on and the 'free' end supported on a camera tripod.

 

Just a thought, might help unlock some new options :)

Thanks, Louis - this is certainly thought provoking. I need to ponder a bit more before replying…..

 

Nick.