Basuto Quay - GWR 1908 in 7mm scale

[Compound2632]

On a quayside branch such as this, how often will the track have been relayed between first building and 1908? Was this line originally broad gauge? If it has been relayed (at some date after gauge narrowing, if applicable) would state of the art p/way material be used or recycled second-hand components?

 

In other words, it's not GWR practice of 1908 that matters but practice of, say, the 1880s.

 

I was at a talk on Midland track on Saturday. There were examples of 1870 pattern components in use in sidings well into the 20th century. Even main lines could perfectly well be laid with track of a pattern that had been superceded 20 years earlier, such was the lifetime of the material.

 

Apologies if you have already discussed this and I've missed it.

Edited July 1 by Compound2632

[magmouse]

A very good point, Stephen, and thanks for raising it, as it hasn't been discussed before.

 

I am imagining that the railway comes to Netherport around the 1860s or 1870s, and some quayside sidings are built at that time, probably by the harbour authority, and operated by the GWR. Later, around the turn of the century, the passenger facility was added to serve the new Basuto Quay, itself built to allow larger ships to dock in deeper water, and at all states of the tide.

 

On that basis, the quay sidings could be almost anything, and in any case will be largely invisible as it will be infilled with setts to close to the rail top. Not a quayside, but see for example this picture:

 

Ebedded image from : https://www.steampicturelibrary.com/stations-halts/london-stations-paddington-station/shunting-horse-paddington-1925-6300316.html

 

The main route into the platform and its associated run-round loop will be to a higher and newer standard, so late 1890s/early 1900s. It could still have used second-hand materials, though, I would think.

 

Oh, and regarding broad gauge, I have been assuming the Netherport branch was standard gauge since it was constructed, possibly originally as an independent railway, then operated by the GWR before being fully absorbed. That part of the back-story needs fleshing out a little more, and cross-checking with reality...

 

Nick.

[Compound2632]

13 minutes ago, magmouse said:

On that basis, the quay sidings could be almost anything, and in any case will be largely invisible as it will be infilled with setts to close to the rail top. 

 

I was thinking particularly of pointwork, prompted by your mention of loose heel switches.

Edited July 1 by Compound2632

[Compound2632]

55 minutes ago, magmouse said:

Not a quayside, but see for example this picture:

 

Not at all qualified to comment on this but is this an example of old broad gauge rail laid on longitudinal baulks of timber?  This being, of course, originally a broad gauge location.

 

Looking at the history of Netherport's alter ego, the Bridport branch, although an independent company it was built to broad gauge, since the Wilts, Somerset, and Weymouth, with which it was connected, was being built as broad gauge. Both lines were converted to standard gauge in 1874, but the baulk road was retained for some years afterwards - at least until 1910 within Bridport station, despite the station having been remodelled. The West Bay extension was built in 1884, hence was always standard gauge.

 

So it seems to me that if Netherport's back-story postulates that the line was built after the early 1870s, t would always have been standard gauge, and would never have had any baulk road. If it had been built by an independent company, it's possible that the original p/way was done on the cheap and the GWR might well have relaid it soon after take-over - although not necessarily with new material. 

[magmouse]

Thanks, Stephen - more 'historical' research needed to uncover the fictional story...

[magmouse]

On 29/06/2024 at 13:16, 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 :)

 

Returning to @Schooner's suggestion of a few days ago, I have played about with the idea of having the cassettes off the main board. It isn't possible to do this at the right-hand end of the layout, as the isn't enough access space with the chest of drawers that needs to be in that part of the room.

 

Here's a version of the plan with the cassette at the left hand end, in the context of the room:

(ignore the dotted blue lines - they show the ceiling and Velux window).

 

There are two problems:

• The cassette prevents access to the left hand end of the layout to work the small cassettes for the Hunt & Son private siding. I am pretty committed to this feature, as it adds significantly to operational interest to be able to have wagons go off loaded and come back empty, or vice versa. Remember that the boards are 750mm deep, and I have set a limit of 500mm for the furthest back track can be that will require access for coupling and uncoupling with the three-links that I am using.
• As drawn, there isn't enough room for the train+loco cassettes to be fully off the main board. To achieve this, the pointwork at the left-hand end of the run-round loop would need to be further to the right, reducing the length of the loop. This impacts the maximum train length, and again, this is again something I don't want to compromise.

The second issue might be solved by having the cassette line cross the loop, rather than joining at one end, but I don't see a solution to the first problem. Of course, if someone has an ingenious idea, I'd love to hear it, but at present the idea of the cassettes being off the main board doesn't seem to be compatible with other requirements, attractive as it is.

 

Nick.

 

[Schooner]

Shooting from the hip:

9 hours ago, magmouse said:

The cassette prevents access to the left hand end of the layout

Only when in situ, which need only be for on-scene/off-scene moves (assuming there's a viable headshunt available without it). Something like

• Pick the cassette for today's playtime
• Pop it on the layout connection
• Bring the train on-scene, into the loop
• Ditch the empty cassette (whilst the driver and fireman nip off for a swift half of cleansing ale)
• Play trains, ending up with a train ready to depart the loop
• Fit cassette
• Drive off-scene, return cassette to storage, apologise to spouse for being late to tea.

:)

 

9 hours ago, magmouse said:

As drawn, there isn't enough room for the train+loco cassettes to be fully off the main board.

Cassette lenth = loop length, then? This would be the case regardless of the cassette setup...?

 

9 hours ago, magmouse said:

Here's a version of the plan with the cassette at the left hand end, in the context of the room:

Regardless all else, this is interesting to see, and shows benefit of full-length siding access to make the most of the 500mm working depth.

 

Are your couplings fully 'prototypical', or do you use a magnetic link at the end to aid coupling/uncoupling?

 

As with the cassette thing, just as (ir-)relevant info, I've found that doing this improves things no end in 4mm and I've missed it in 7mm. I'll be retrofitting exisiting stock with an iron link so I can more easily deal with wagon shuffling. My current weapon of choice is a magnetised engineers scribe, which increases my wingspan by a good 10cm without downside (to date!).

 

HTH, looking forward to the next updates, wherever they may lead!

 

[magmouse]

Thanks, Louis, for your perseverance with this! It encourages me to keep niggling away at it too. Iterative design, and all that. To respond to a couple of specific points first:

• Couplings - good point about the benefits of magnetic links. I haven't been doing this intentionally, but a quick test shows the links on all the wagon couplings I am using are made from steel wire (Slaters and Peco). The exception so far is the lost wax brass screw-link on the horse box.
• Cassette and loop length. The loop length is based on train length without loco, to allow a train to arrive and the loco to run round - see the green box in the layout drawing above marked 'train without loco'. The idea with the cassettes is to have separate cassettes for trains and locos, so the loco can be switched from one end to the other without handling to loco directly. This cassette concept originated with earlier plans for the layout that had a full depth fiddle yard at the LH end, with a flat surface on which cassettes could be slid around, which is not where the plan has now got to. More thoughts on this below, but in terms of dimensions, yes, cassette length and loop length are linked, because they together determine the maximum train length.

Your description of an operating session made me think a bit more about this, and realise that I need to be more specific about the different possible operations. So, based on the current track layout -

• Autotrain (class 517 and trailer) - in and out of the platform road - easy.
• Autotrain with tail load, such as Siphon (probably for fish or fruit+veg, not milk), horse box, fish truck, or other vac fitted vehicle, which will need shunting into or out of the end loading dock adjacent to the platform road. A train departing with tail load can reverse onto it to couple up, with the loco still attached to the trailer. A train arriving with tail load will need to uncouple the loco from the trailer (much cursing by the crew at the awkward control gear connections) in order to shunt the tail load, as the loco and trailer can't stay connected and use the loop, since the headhunt is too short for loco+trailer.
• Other passenger traffic - as above, but with a run-round required using the loop.
• General goods, with brake van - arrives in loop. Anything destined for Hunt & Son has hopefully been marshalled at the front of the train, and can be directly shunted into the back siding (by Dovetail's warehouse) for the Hunt & Son works loco to collect. Anything for the quay siding will require the loco to run round, shunt the brake van into the end loading dock, then take wagons off the back of the train, using the Hunt & Son siding as a headhunt to access the quay siding.
• Traffic in and out of the works is moved by the works loco to and from the Dovetail siding (used as an exchange siding), maximum two wagons at a time. Wagons are always propelled into the works, and pulled out.

That feels like there is plenty of scope given the layout size, and enough challenge to maintain interest, with the potential for up to ten wagons and a brake van, plus passenger traffic, in play at any one time. It also prompts some thoughts:

• The works loco never needs to be on a cassette, since it always stays at the quayside end. As long as I arrange buildings, etc., so I can reach in to couple and uncouple, only the max. two wagons need to be on a cassette - so rather than cassettes, I could have a mini traverser, with, say, four tracks. That would give coal in and out, and another load in and out.
• I had envisaged a cassette system with long cassettes for trains without locos, and short cassettes for locos. At the moment, I am planning for a 517 class for passenger and an 850 for goods, which are close to the same length. The aim is to minimise stock handling - the loco can change ends without being touched directly. However, this doesn't answer the question of the brake van, or passenger tail traffic. The auto train feels like a special case - it is shorter, and doesn't need to have the loco moved from one end to the other. Could it have it's own off-stage track???
• Part of my thinking has been that the layout is primarily a home layout, with the possibility of being exhibited. In exhibition mode, it would have a more conventional fiddle yard extension at the LH end, with cassettes, traverse or pointwork. The area used for cassettes (on or off the main board) would have a replacement scenic module for exhibition use. However - operating three-link couplings from the front of the layout is not a good look at an exhibition - the audience doesn't want to look at the back of the operator struggling with a coupling. Operating from behind means the issue of maximum reach comes up again, but in reverse. It also implies a low back-scene, and relatively low layout height, none of which feels very attractive...
• Up to this point, I have been pretty convinced I want the platform behind the loop track work, partly for access to couple and uncouple, and partly for visual reasons. I am now wondering if I am wrong about this - as the track is near the front of the layout, leaning over the canopy to reach couplings might be manageable, and it might be interesting to see the train from under the canopy (I think of @Mikkel's wonderful platform scenes). In exhibition mode, it puts the track nearer the centre of the layout and so reachable from both sides. It has the advantage the end loading dock would be adjacent to the road in front of the warehouses, which makes much more sense, though it might make the area around the harbour light too cluttered. I need to model it...

Lots to think about - more comments always welcome!

 

Nick.

[magmouse]

So, flipping the platform to the other side has been interesting:

 

 

Good things:

• It looks like it is possible to fit in a @Schooner-style fiddle-stick-cassette off the board (subject to a more accurate track plan in Templot).
• It would also be possible to have a triangular board extension permanently in position, and still just about reach to what is now a traverser on the works siding. The extension would be non-scenic, and used in the home situation, with cassettes on top. The scenic line would finish at the front edge of the main board, closed off at the leftt-hand end by building 'X'. For exhibition, the extension is removed and building X replaced with a small module, extending the track to the added fiddle yard board to the left. I think I prefer this option to the fiddle stick.
• The section of track needed to run round at the LH end of the loop is now fully scenic - previously it relied on the loco going onto a cassette to run round, so that's a big win.
• As noted in my previous post, having the end loading dock adjacent to the buildings at the back makes much more sense in terms of its connection to the road and quayside.
• The Dovetail siding is a bit longer.

Bad things:

• The nicely balanced view looking down the length of the layout has been impacted - previously the buildings at the back, the station canopy and the harbour light were nicely spaced out. Now the canopy is blocking the view of the harbour light (but see below).
• The area of quayside front-right, in front of the station, now has no purpose - before, it felt like it related to the end loading dock, and could have been dressed with fishing tackle, etc.
• The track layout has become less interesting, with a lot of straight and near-straight lines. I think I can get a bit of an s-curve into the front tracks (the loop and track either end of it), which could bring a slight curve to the platform (an original wish that got lost on the way) and get the end loading dock and headhunt slightly further from the harbour light, opening up that corner a bit. The front section of quayside might become more of a promenade, with railings.

This could work...

 

Nick.

[Annie]

Oh good you went with the six track traverser hidden behind Hunt & Son.  I thought that was a really good idea for being able to vary loads in and out of the factory building without having to handle any wagons.  Yes there are more straight tracks which aren't so interesting with the station platform having been moved, but the wharf looks less cluttered now and the extra bits of siding space are definitely worth having. 

[t-b-g]

10 minutes ago, magmouse said:

So, flipping the platform to the other side has been interesting:

 

 

Good things:

• It looks like it is possible to fit in a @Schooner-style fiddle-stick-cassette off the board (subject to a more accurate track plan in Templot).
• It would also be possible to have a triangular board extension permanently in position, and still just about reach to what is now a traverser on the works siding. The extension would be non-scenic, and used in the home situation, with cassettes on top. The scenic line would finish at the front edge of the main board, closed off at the leftt-hand end by building 'X'. For exhibition, the extension is removed and building X replaced with a small module, extending the track to the added fiddle yard board to the left. I think I prefer this option to the fiddle stick.
• The section of track needed to run round at the LH end of the loop is now fully scenic - previously it relied on the loco going onto a cassette to run round, so that's a big win.
• As noted in my previous post, having the end loading dock adjacent to the buildings at the back makes much more sense in terms of its connection to the road and quayside.
• The Dovetail siding is a bit longer.

Bad things:

• The nicely balanced view looking down the length of the layout has been impacted - previously the buildings at the back, the station canopy and the harbour light were nicely spaced out. Now the canopy is blocking the view of the harbour light (but see below).
• The area of quayside front-right, in front of the station, now has no purpose - before, it felt like it related to the end loading dock, and could have been dressed with fishing tackle, etc.
• The track layout has become less interesting, with a lot of straight and near-straight lines. I think I can get a bit of an s-curve into the front tracks (the loop and track either end of it), which could bring a slight curve to the platform (an original wish that got lost on the way) and get the end loading dock and headhunt slightly further from the harbour light, opening up that corner a bit. The front section of quayside might become more of a promenade, with railings.

This could work...

 

Nick.

 

All trains on this version have to arrive in the platform road. Depending on how long you have at each end of the loop, you might struggle to shunt more than a single wagon at a time into the yard area.

 

On the previous version you had much easier access to the sidings.

[magmouse]

6 minutes ago, t-b-g said:

All trains on this version have to arrive in the platform road. Depending on how long you have at each end of the loop, you might struggle to shunt more than a single wagon at a time into the yard area.

 

Good point - the connection into the quay sidings may need to come off the middle of the loop, rather than from a single slip off the loop crossover (as in the previous versions). I'll see how that fits in the next iteration - it may prevent me getting the s-curves into the loop, but we will see...

 

Thanks for spotting this -

 

Nick.

[Schooner]

16 hours ago, magmouse said:

The area of quayside front-right, in front of the station, now has no purpose

The ferry pontoon, no?

Kingswear, just for funsies

[magmouse]

The next iteration, with a focus on addressing the issue raised by @t-b-g, but also a few other tweaks:

 

 

The main change to the track layout is the arrival from the cassettes now crosses the loop, with a slip to arriving trains to access either branch of the loop. When in exhibition mode, the triangular extension will be removed, and the track coming off the front of the layout is assumed to be a siding serving some other part of the harbour area.

 

Here is my thinking about train movements - I'd be delighted to get your thoughts on whether this works, possible improvements or snags, etc.:

 

Assumptions:

• Platform long enough for a train without loco (850mm)
• Loop long enough for a train without loco (850mm)
• Headshunt H long enough for a loco or tail load (220mm)
• Headshunt B, in home mode, long enough for a loco and tail load (420mm)
• From turnout F to end loading dock G long enough for 4 wagons and a loco (ideally with something still in the end loading dock, but this is not assumed) (760mm)
• Works road C long enough for works loco, other loco and 2 wagons (the works loco stays parked on this road, hidden behind the works building) (640mm)

 

Moves:

 

Home mode

• Passenger train: arrive from A into platform road I, via slip at J. Once passengers are off, set back towards B to allow loco to run around train using the loop, via headshunts H and B. Set back into the platform road again, ready to depart to A.
• Passenger train arriving with tail load: arrive from A into platform road I, via slip at J. Once passengers are off, set back towards B to allow loco to run around train using the loop, via headshunts H and B. Uncouple tail load, reverse into B, propel tail load into end loading dock G. Loco returns to B and sets back onto the train, back into the platform road again, ready to depart to A.
• Passenger train collecting tail load: arrive from A into platform road I, via slip at J. Once passengers are off, set back towards B to allow loco to run around train using the loop, via headshunts H and B. Couple up to train and pull forward towards A, then reverse onto the tail load via F. Draw forward again, and reverse train into platform road, ready for departure.
• Goods train: arrive from A, cross to the far side of the loop via F, towards headshunt H (this allows there to be something in the end loading dock). Reverse towards B, until clear of turnouts at F. Shunt wagons from front of train into D as required. OR arrive from A, into the platform road I. Reverse back towards B, to clear the loop. Detach loco and run round, via headshunts H and B. Couple to brake van, reverse into B, and shunt the brake van into the end loading dock G, or (if the dock is needed) to H. Return to B, and take wagons off the rear of the train, shunting to E as required, via F and C. Depending on the destinations of the wagons, some trains will need a combination of these two shunting methods.

 

Exhibition mode

• Passenger train: arrive from fiddle yard via B into platform road I. Once passengers are off, set back towards B to allow loco to run around train using the loop, via headshunts H and B. Set back into the platform road again, ready to depart to B.
• Passenger train arriving with tail load: arrive from B into platform road I. Once passengers are off, set back towards B to allow loco to run around train using the loop, via headshunts H and B. Uncouple tail load, reverse into B, propel tail load into end loading dock G. Loco returns to B and sets back onto the train, back into the platform road again, ready to depart to B.
• Passenger train collecting tail load: arrive from B into platform road I. Once passengers are off, set back towards B to allow loco to run around train using the loop, via headshunts H and B. Couple up to train and pull forward towards B, then reverse onto the tail load via F. Draw forward again, and reverse train into platform road, ready for departure.
• Goods train: arrive from B, stopping before reaching F. Shunt wagons from front of train into D as required. OR arrive from B, into the platform road I, keeping the loop clear. Detach loco and run round, via headshunts H and B. Couple to brake van, reverse into B, and shunt the brake van into the end loading dock G, or (if the dock is needed) to H. Return to B, and take wagons off the rear of the train, shunting to E as required, via F and C. Depending on the destinations of the wagons, some trains will need a combination of these two shunting methods.

All this is subject to the new track plan being tested in Templot, to ensure I can achieve the measurements set out under 'Assumptions'.

 

As well as (hopefully) making the layout operable, the changes have Also clarified the purpose of the area bottom left, near the harbour light. By adding a slight curve to the see wall, I want to suggest that this is the end of a promenade, in the more tourist-oriented part of the town. The ticket office sells tickets for the train, of course, but also the steamers, so this is the nearest point to the steamer pier that is accessible by foot and horse-drawn vehicle from this side of the town (wealthier patrons are not going to want to go through the working part of the harbour). The platform will be partly enclosed with a wooden partition, giving shelter from the onshore winds and (on the outside) providing a place for advertisements, posters, timetables, and so on.

 

The hexagonal ticket booth might be a bit OTT but helps set the 'seaside' vibe of this corner of the layout - did someone suggest this upthread - Phil, Louis? What has clarified in my mind is the 'zoning' of the layout - industry to the left, older working harbour rear-centre and rear-right, and (separated by the passenger facilities) the promenade front-right.

 

This is probably ready for testing in Templot, which could undo it all, if it turns out the track geometry doesn't fit....

 

Nick.

[Chrisbr]

Definitely the best iteration so far in my opinion and looking forward to seeing the Templot version, there's some interesting trackwork being proposed 😃

 

My only query would be the picking up of a tail load sequence, and I have no prototype experience to draw on, but rather than shunting the coaches to the tail traffic, would it not be easier to drop the tail traffic into headshunt H and then drop the coaches back onto it before settling at the platform for passengers prior to departure?

 

Chris

 

[magmouse]

Thanks, Chris.

 

1 hour ago, Chrisbr said:

there's some interesting trackwork being proposed 😃

 

Yup! I'll be seeking your expertise on that...

 

1 hour ago, Chrisbr said:

My only query would be the picking up of a tail load sequence, and I have no prototype experience to draw on, but rather than shunting the coaches to the tail traffic, would it not be easier to drop the tail traffic into headshunt H and then drop the coaches back onto it before settling at the platform for passengers prior to departure?

 

Agreed - that makes more sense.

 

Nick.

[Schooner]

*like* :)

 

I appreciate there are other considerations, but wonder if it might be possible/practical to extend the Dovetail siding by a wagon length (so the 'working' coupling is still on the 50cm mark)? Likewise extending the loco release to the edge of the land. Won't unlock any new moves, but provides a bit of flexibility/future-proofing for longer locos or esoteric wagons to sit on show but out of the way.

 

3-way and single slip, the Ricean ideal! Looking forward to seeing what's possible in Templot :)

 

Otherwise nothing to offer - sounds good, looks good, and I like the tourist/promenade thing :) Put in mind of So'ton Royal Pier, which is no bad thing!

 

etc

 

Edit: in case it's of any use my take on the pier, inc some pics I found helpful and inspirational, is here

Edited July 8 by Schooner

[Annie]

I was trying to figure out what was happening with that strange lot of scribble on that old photo of the Royal Pier until I found this better version.

 

[Northroader]

Mr. Schooner sir, there ain’t no liner terminal on the end of the Royal Pier. Kindly rub it out.

[magmouse]

3 hours ago, Schooner said:

*like* :)

 

Good!

 

3 hours ago, Schooner said:

I appreciate there are other considerations, but wonder if it might be possible/practical to extend the Dovetail siding by a wagon length (so the 'working' coupling is still on the 50cm mark)? Likewise extending the loco release to the edge of the land. Won't unlock any new moves, but provides a bit of flexibility/future-proofing for longer locos or esoteric wagons to sit on show but out of the way.

 

Exact extent of these elements of the track layout will be tweaked once I get to a more exact version of the plan. Current thinking with the Dovetail siding area is that what is marked as 'warehouse', next to the traverser, will become a retaining wall with building(s) above, over the rear half of the traverser, hinting at the town beyond, and indicating the land rising quite steeply in this direction, away from the harbour.

 

The loco release road H can't go all the way to the edge of the quay, because:

• it is the pedestrian route to the steamers, through the gate/arch indicated by the small unlabelled rectangle at the rear right corner of the layout
• the cupboard limits access for coupling and uncoupling at this end of the layout
• visually, the track and trains needs to b kept as far away as possible from the harbour light - the more space I can open up in this area, the better, within practical constraints. I am planning some vertical separation by having this area of the quayside at approximately platform height, rather than rail height - it helps with the platform access and the end loading dock, as well as increasing the land height above water level on the seaward side, making the promenade feel more like is serves as a sea defence.

Within those constraints and desiderata, I will squeeze out as much wriggle room as possible with all the critical track dimensions. As you say, at some point I am going to want some bit of stock that is just bigger than the layout was designed to accommodate! Tender locos will have to wait until full-sized Netherport, however...

 

3 hours ago, Schooner said:

Put in mind of So'ton Royal Pier, which is no bad thing!

 

How did you guess? Southampton is my main influence for the atmosphere of this part of the layout, as well as offering a template for usefully compact platforms and facilities.

 

3 hours ago, Schooner said:

my take on the pier, inc some pics I found helpful and inspirational, is here

 

Great, thanks.

 

Nick.

[Western Star]

On 14/06/2024 at 23:09, 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.

Ooohh, is that a check lump scenario in the foreground?  You are asked to excuse Swindon-speak when the photo is in Great Eastern land.