THE BRYMSTON RR -Episode 3 (still catching up)

Yes , still catching up to what was posted on the modelling forums a year ago. This instalment should get the words up to date so I can start posting some new stuff.

This episode deals with layout planning, well, the initial efforts as things and thoughts have already moved on as will be discussed in coming episodes.

As is traditional with model railways Plan A tried to cram too much in. To some extent this was forgivable as one of this boards reasons for existing is to provide a home for my geared locos and I have got rather a lot of them due to my habit of collecting them.

This version featured standard, but short, turnouts, too many of them and too much track. The three locos in the foreground are “on shed” and the headshunt to the left of them (where the circle thingy is) is too short to be off any use. Basically, this version is all turnout and no room to move.

A quick aside – Turnouts:   Having said short I should quantify this. In the USA turnouts have a number be it #4. #6 or #9. What this number denotes is the angle of the vee be it 1 in 4, 1 in 5 or 1 in 9. It only sort of equates to radius as a) radius of turnouts is something modellers have dreamt up and b) the diverging route is only curved between the blades and the vee.

It does still mean that my bendy shays will go across a #4 but my K36 2-8-2 doesn’t stand a chance needing a #6 as a minimum or a #9 to look prototypical.  It does also reflect the space they take up which I will illustrate in the future. Another handy thing for the ancient industrial layout is the sub turnout. Instead of fixed stock rails and moving blades the stub uses moving stock rails as in the picture. These were common but not suited to any sort of speedy running to they died out except in yards and on ancient none passenger industrial railroads. One really handy feature for fitting a quart into a pint pot on a layout is they are shorter than a bladed turnout,

Right back to the layout.

What comes after Plan A, plan B of course.

Plan B evolves. Since the original plan was posted I have revised it using a couple of wyes and a 3 way

  1. Point that connects to the rest of the world. Needs to be in this front corner at datum level to connect to future plans.
  2. This siding originally came off the back road. It may yet go back there or get deleted
  3. Water tank and pump complex – something like the Argent one
  4. 3 way stub turnout, because I can and it allows the access to Siding E
  5. Sand facility. May lead to siding B getting deleted (I have a Durango sand house kit looking for a home
  6. Fuel facility.
  7. Loco shed reduced to two roads. Two engines inside and two outside. Losing one track allows wider spacing and for the shed to feature a workshop lean to.

Turnouts in the diagonal route will be standard bladed turnouts whilst the 3 way and the front right one will be stub turnouts

Since that proposal was put to the group on the forum siding B has been deleted. The back siding has been moved nearer to the back and its turnout downgraded to a stub for space winning reasons. One of the design constraints/requirements was to make sure that a loco and bogie wagon would fit in the headshunt behind the shed (or as illustrated a Uintah 2-6-6-2 mallet fit in it.

Currently there is also some rethinking with regard to the length of the headshunt at the front that gives access to siding E. This will be discussed in future episodes as a design constraint that didn’t exist a year ago has presented itself.

I may also change the last remaining bladed turnout at the entrance to the board to a stub so that all on this module are stubs. I suspect that the fiddling with the access to line E the inch or two that being a stub gains may be crucial.

The centrepiece is likely to be the three way stub that gives access to the shed and headshunt.

I am currently toying with an idea to build all the track in sheets of 2mm MDF for a number of reasons. The main one is that once I have the alignments off the layout I can build the details of the turnouts on the workbench where the tools are and I can twist and turn the build to work at the best angles.

The other reason is that I want to mess with the ground level heights in the model. Nothing massive or alpine but I don’t want a flat layout. Raising the track, even if only 2mm allows some ground to be below track level.



 337 total views,  1 views today

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.