Eversley Green - P4 BR (S) layout

Tell us about your layout, where you put it, how you built it, how you operate it.
User avatar
kelly
Posts: 525
Joined: Mon May 30, 2016 1:59 pm

Re: As yet unamed P4 small layout

Postby kelly » Sun Jul 16, 2017 11:22 pm

Colin Parks wrote:Hi Kelly,

Interesting track plan and most ingenious of you to fit everything in! Having studied the plan, two questions occur to me: Is this a single track line? How does a train access the bay platform? Perhaps reversing the trailing crossover for a facing one (at the 4-5ft mark) would help.

All the best,

Colin


Hi Colin,

9ft was the limit on length imposed by storage/space to erect at home, hence the curve to form an L. It is however being planned with future expansion in mind. To fit it all in, the station hadn't to be angled and curved a bit, to lessen the effect of the 3ftx5ft curved lines.

Effectively it is single track as far as passenger usage [as Shepperton is, with the second platform never really used for most of the time other than for storage/stabling].

More information about the location it is based upon is here.

As can be seen from this photo the second platform was never used due to the line being stopped there (the original plan was to extend towards Weymouth iirc).
http://s0.geograph.org.uk/geophotos/01/07/81/1078117_cd15272b.jpg

The bay platform isn't for passenger use, it is parcels/goods only. So goods traffics has to set back (as per prototype from Natalie's research).

There is a carriage siding on the right that units access via the crossover.
DEMU UPDate Editor
DEMU
Photos on Flickr

User avatar
Noel
Posts: 1973
Joined: Wed Jun 23, 2010 1:04 pm

Re: As yet unamed P4 small layout

Postby Noel » Mon Jul 17, 2017 10:14 am

kelly wrote:the original plan was to extend towards Weymouth iirc
Or Weybridge, I suspect?

When originally designed [in reality] the sidings on the inside of the curve would have been trapped, as they connect to what was intended to be a passenger running line. If, and only if, the second platform had been formally abandoned, never to be used by passengers, then those traps would have become redundant, but one would then have been required at the far end of the loop where it joins the running line. The sidings on the outside of the curve are OK, as the 'bay' line points act as the trap for all of the sidings.
Regards
Noel

User avatar
kelly
Posts: 525
Joined: Mon May 30, 2016 1:59 pm

Re: As yet unamed P4 small layout

Postby kelly » Mon Jul 17, 2017 2:51 pm

Noel wrote:
kelly wrote:the original plan was to extend towards Weymouth iirc
Or Weybridge, I suspect?

When originally designed [in reality] the sidings on the inside of the curve would have been trapped, as they connect to what was intended to be a passenger running line. If, and only if, the second platform had been formally abandoned, never to be used by passengers, then those traps would have become redundant, but one would then have been required at the far end of the loop where it joins the running line. The sidings on the outside of the curve are OK, as the 'bay' line points act as the trap for all of the sidings.


Yes, it was when I looked at the page later that I realised I'd made a mistake, tired brain.

There'll be a trap point just prior to the right hand crossover (ideally it'd be nearer to the platforms for better running around, but baseboard joins make it difficult to both get acceptable in terms of curvature and avoiding a join) on the left hand side.

It is envisioned that the plan will have a small extension to the left at a later date, turning it into a through station, with mainly goods fascilities in the extension board.

Having an ex-Signalman (and signalling enthusiast) as a co-hort in research and development of the layout means the signalling has to be correct as well as the operation, which is all to the good imo.
DEMU UPDate Editor
DEMU
Photos on Flickr

User avatar
PeteT
Posts: 471
Joined: Tue Jan 11, 2011 9:53 pm

Re: As yet unamed P4 small layout

Postby PeteT » Mon Jul 17, 2017 5:14 pm

I appreciate that you are trying to fit within off the shelf boards, but there seem to have been a few good concepts shelved because of this.

Would it not be better to alter the board sizes slightly to suit the best track plan for use of space? It looks like there are enough challenges to fit the curve, & if you end up compromising the look or operability of the layout it could well lead to a loss of enthusiam half way through.

Either way, its an interesting thread covering the usual issues we all have in terms of space.

User avatar
kelly
Posts: 525
Joined: Mon May 30, 2016 1:59 pm

Re: As yet unamed P4 small layout

Postby kelly » Mon Jul 17, 2017 8:19 pm

PeteT wrote:I appreciate that you are trying to fit within off the shelf boards, but there seem to have been a few good concepts shelved because of this.

Would it not be better to alter the board sizes slightly to suit the best track plan for use of space? It looks like there are enough challenges to fit the curve, & if you end up compromising the look or operability of the layout it could well lead to a loss of enthusiam half way through.

Either way, its an interesting thread covering the usual issues we all have in terms of space.



The basic concept has been kept througout for the most part really (double track terminus with 3rd rail). It admittedly changed a bit when based upon Shepperton.

The board sizes are set really now as they're built and ready to be used, can't really afford to replace them with bigger ones (or store extra ones at this point).

The point of the layout has been to learn all the pitfalls of fitting P4 in, etc and learning the various aspects of P4, it has grown a bit in size to be more useable in terms of EMUs. The yard and sidings should give enough operational interest I think generally.

Some more tweaks are needed to the plan still however, as evidenced by discussions over on the Templot Club forums.
DEMU UPDate Editor
DEMU
Photos on Flickr

Phil O
Posts: 363
Joined: Sun May 05, 2013 5:23 pm

Re: As yet unamed P4 small layout

Postby Phil O » Tue Jul 18, 2017 9:03 pm

There is no problem with turnouts across board joints as long as the join falls within the closure rails. Just build the turnouts as normal and then cut the with a razor saw across the board join.

Phil.

User avatar
kelly
Posts: 525
Joined: Mon May 30, 2016 1:59 pm

Re: As yet unamed P4 small layout

Postby kelly » Tue Sep 12, 2017 4:03 pm

Following discussions on the templot club, some changes have been made, mainly tweaks and timber shoving. Not 100% it is perfect, but I think I have the station are resolved pretty much.

I shall have the printed out templot drawings with me at Scaleforum on the DEMU stand, possibly even the first two boards of the layout so I can work on seeing how they look and display it as is depending upon room in the car.
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
DEMU UPDate Editor
DEMU
Photos on Flickr

Colin Parks

Re: As yet unamed P4 small layout

Postby Colin Parks » Tue Sep 12, 2017 4:20 pm

Hi Kelly,

Your revised Templot plan has a nice flow to it. Looking forward to seeing photos of progress on the layout as and when.

All the best,

Colin

User avatar
kelly
Posts: 525
Joined: Mon May 30, 2016 1:59 pm

Re: As yet unamed P4 small layout

Postby kelly » Tue Sep 12, 2017 4:27 pm

Colin Parks wrote:Hi Kelly,

Your revised Templot plan has a nice flow to it. Looking forward to seeing photos of progress on the layout as and when.

All the best,

Colin


Thanks Colin. It has taken a fair number of tries to get it to where it is, with members of here and Templot Club being invaluable.

The flowing simple nature of the plan is the main attraction, even if it did rather outgrow the initial 'small 4ft 8.5in layout' idea a bit!

The boards are mostly painted at least, so when I get chance I can get started with track laying duties (the main running lines being Flatbottom, the sidings being Bullhead). I think I might go for simplicity and use pandrol clips like you have from Peco with the code 82 rail (though I believe they're withdrawing it now?) and bullhead exactoscale for the sidings. The colin craig stuff will no doubt look better, but not sure I'm quite ready for that at present, maybe on the next layout I'll use it (though he doesn't do the right version for 3rd rail track iirc). Next job will be to lay cork on the boards (mainly to raise the track off the boards to allow a 'gap' for buildings to be placed into so the buildings can have a thicker base as they'll be removable).
DEMU UPDate Editor
DEMU
Photos on Flickr

User avatar
kelly
Posts: 525
Joined: Mon May 30, 2016 1:59 pm

Re: As yet unamed P4 small layout

Postby kelly » Wed Sep 13, 2017 5:13 pm

Now I'm back home again after being away for a few weeks (partly health, partly looking after my partner's new puppy), I have had chance to sit down and discuss plans with Natalie in relation to FB or BH track.

The plan being based in 59-62, likely not going to be much FB around the area at the time, being a branch. Though later (in the 90s) the Shepperton branch got FB on concrete.

So, either all BH, or BH with FB sections on wooden sleepers.

BH is probably the easier route initially, with the C&L exactoscale range of items. I have an A7 kit to build at some point (not destined for this plan) and a B6 C&L kit (again not destined for this plan). I can't recall now if I changed the Templot plan to have the double track section FB or not, so might need to reprint that, some more timber shoving needed too.
Last edited by kelly on Fri Sep 15, 2017 12:43 am, edited 1 time in total.
DEMU UPDate Editor
DEMU
Photos on Flickr

Colin Parks

Re: As yet unamed P4 small layout

Postby Colin Parks » Wed Sep 13, 2017 5:47 pm

Hi Kelly,

Re. Peco code 82 IL-115 flat bottom rail, it has definitely been withdrawn and Peco have no remaining stock. I have an order for some Peco code 83 rail to collect this weekend and will report back on its similarity to the code 82 offering and its compatibility with Peco's pandrol fixings (which are not being withdrawn).

All the best,

Colin

User avatar
kelly
Posts: 525
Joined: Mon May 30, 2016 1:59 pm

Re: As yet unamed P4 small layout

Postby kelly » Wed Sep 13, 2017 6:13 pm

Colin Parks wrote:Hi Kelly,

Re. Peco code 82 IL-115 flat bottom rail, it has definitely been withdrawn and Peco have no remaining stock. I have an order for some Peco code 83 rail to collect this weekend and will report back on its similarity to the code 82 offering and its compatibility with Peco's pandrol fixings (which are not being withdrawn).

All the best,

Colin


The EMGS society also offer Code 83 rail in 1/2m length.

I think for the time being to make life a bit simpler i'll stick to BH for now and use FB on the Woolwich layout (which is set in the 90s anyhow). I have a pack of the Pandrol fixings from Peco on the way to take a look at, but as I have a lot of C&L BH rail I might as well use that. I expect I'll have to buy Exactoscale points for the C10 points on the plan (3 of them that I recall, the rest being B8, B7 with one B5.5), unless I make my own crossings etc, which might be a better option.
DEMU UPDate Editor
DEMU
Photos on Flickr

User avatar
kelly
Posts: 525
Joined: Mon May 30, 2016 1:59 pm

Re: As yet unamed P4 small layout

Postby kelly » Wed Sep 13, 2017 8:32 pm

Done a bit of photographic research to figure out the timbering and shoving. It seems that along the Shepperton branch, it was the practice to use long timbers rather than interlaced, so I've modified some of the templates to reflect that, seems to look better. I would guess that the need to ensure the 3rd rail was also supported is part of the reasons.
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
DEMU UPDate Editor
DEMU
Photos on Flickr

Colin Parks

Re: As yet unamed P4 small layout

Postby Colin Parks » Wed Sep 13, 2017 9:35 pm

Hi Kelly,

Looking at the revised Templot plan, I did wonder if one long timber could be omitted and the others shoved about to even out the gaps in the timbering of templates 29 and 32. (Not that I am an expert in these matters!)

All the best,

Colin

User avatar
kelly
Posts: 525
Joined: Mon May 30, 2016 1:59 pm

Re: As yet unamed P4 small layout

Postby kelly » Wed Sep 13, 2017 9:48 pm

Colin Parks wrote:Hi Kelly,

Looking at the revised Templot plan, I did wonder if one long timber could be omitted and the others shoved about to even out the gaps in the timbering of templates 29 and 32. (Not that I am an expert in these matters!)

All the best,

Colin


I haven't done those ones yet in the revised plan. I reset all the point timbering before starting to revision.

So far only 21, 22, 36 and 20 have been done in the revised plan.
DEMU UPDate Editor
DEMU
Photos on Flickr

User avatar
kelly
Posts: 525
Joined: Mon May 30, 2016 1:59 pm

Re: As yet unamed P4 small layout

Postby kelly » Thu Sep 14, 2017 5:08 pm

Some more minor edits, mainly to increase the spacing between the two lines to 56mm from 48mm (not sure if that is too much, but it allows for future more modern stock to safely traverse the curves). Need to reinstate the trap point. More timber shoving still needed.
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
DEMU UPDate Editor
DEMU
Photos on Flickr

User avatar
kelly
Posts: 525
Joined: Mon May 30, 2016 1:59 pm

Re: As yet unamed P4 small layout

Postby kelly » Fri Sep 15, 2017 11:15 am

More timber shoving and other changes done. Almost there, if the timbers look right I can start building the points and trackwork soon.
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
DEMU UPDate Editor
DEMU
Photos on Flickr

User avatar
Noel
Posts: 1973
Joined: Wed Jun 23, 2010 1:04 pm

Re: As yet unamed P4 small layout

Postby Noel » Fri Sep 15, 2017 11:56 am

I would suggest that the trap on the loop should be further back - where it is looks to me to be very close to, if not actually within the fouling point. Anything it derails could still end up fouling the main line.
Regards
Noel

User avatar
kelly
Posts: 525
Joined: Mon May 30, 2016 1:59 pm

Re: As yet unamed P4 small layout

Postby kelly » Fri Sep 15, 2017 12:05 pm

Noel wrote:I would suggest that the trap on the loop should be further back - where it is looks to me to be very close to, if not actually within the fouling point. Anything it derails could still end up fouling the main line.


Noel, yes I'd spotted that when I was discussing the plan with Natalie. It'll be shifted back a bit. I've made a few small changes since though to the oil terminal (though it inadvertenly added another point crossing a board join).
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
DEMU UPDate Editor
DEMU
Photos on Flickr

User avatar
kelly
Posts: 525
Joined: Mon May 30, 2016 1:59 pm

Re: As yet unamed P4 small layout

Postby kelly » Fri Sep 15, 2017 12:14 pm

Trap point moved further back.
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
DEMU UPDate Editor
DEMU
Photos on Flickr

User avatar
kelly
Posts: 525
Joined: Mon May 30, 2016 1:59 pm

Re: As yet unamed P4 small layout

Postby kelly » Fri Sep 15, 2017 5:31 pm

It was suggested to add some fillets and rotate the plan. Such a simple suggestion, but one that seems to work reasonably well to increase room at the bottom.

kelly_shepperton_mod_2017_09_15_1816_19.png


The highlighted parts are as follows:

Natalie suggested that the ferro-concrete plant which had a private siding could be put in the right hand space, it is highlighted in orange, might need more work to make it look right and a tandem would probably make it flow better, but not sure how to do those in templot yet.

The pink/purple highlighted points are the ones needing attention due to board joins.

A bit of an adjustment as the uppermost crossover ended over the board end.
kelly_shepperton_mod_2017_09_15_1844_51.png
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
DEMU UPDate Editor
DEMU
Photos on Flickr

User avatar
kelly
Posts: 525
Joined: Mon May 30, 2016 1:59 pm

Re: As yet unamed P4 small layout

Postby kelly » Fri Sep 15, 2017 7:09 pm

Natalie looked at diagrams and maps after I'd drawn out the previous one. Simplified. So very nearly there. Shoving and moving some points (baseboard joins - highlighted in pink/purple).

kelly_shepperton_mod_2017_09_15_2003_19.png
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
DEMU UPDate Editor
DEMU
Photos on Flickr

User avatar
kelly
Posts: 525
Joined: Mon May 30, 2016 1:59 pm

Re: Eversley Road - P4 BR (S) layout

Postby kelly » Mon Oct 02, 2017 6:48 pm

We've finally given the layout a name, Eversley Road. The 'Road' bit might change, but the Eversley has a bit of a personal connection as it is the name of the road my Nan lived on.

As it would have it, the other night Natalie was browsing the recently digitised London Transport Railway Modelling Society's past newsletters. A certain Mr Brooke-Smith appears in the early 60s, living on Barnehurst Road, which was the other side of the railway line to where my nan lived and where I grew up. An interesting factoid to discover I felt.
DEMU UPDate Editor
DEMU
Photos on Flickr

Colin Parks

Re: Eversley Green - P4 BR (S) layout

Postby Colin Parks » Fri Oct 06, 2017 10:13 pm

Hi Kelly,

The track plan has come on very well by the looks of it. One thing that I would suggest is to consider whether there should be two sidings in the bottom right hand corner. The siding to the right of this pair appears to gain less space for stock than the turnout which provides access to it. Perhaps omitting this turnout and curving the remaining siding to the left would even gain a little more capacity overall.

All the best,

Colin

User avatar
kelly
Posts: 525
Joined: Mon May 30, 2016 1:59 pm

Re: Eversley Green - P4 BR (S) layout

Postby kelly » Fri Oct 06, 2017 10:20 pm

Colin Parks wrote:Hi Kelly,

The track plan has come on very well by the looks of it. One thing that I would suggest is to consider whether there should be two sidings in the bottom right hand corner. The siding to the right of this pair appears to gain less space for stock than the turnout which provides access to it. Perhaps omitting this turnout and curving the remaining siding to the left would even gain a little more capacity overall.

All the best,

Colin



Thanks Colin.

The two sidings on the right are private gated off area, the smaller one being a stabling point/shed for the private engine for the works/factory there. I've redrawn the image a bit to tidy it up and make it clearer what goes where. Hope this helps clear up what is what. The bottom right is either going to be a bottling plant for milk or a ferro-concrete factory (there was one of both in the area based on).

sketchboard_2017_10_03_1844_08.png
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
DEMU UPDate Editor
DEMU
Photos on Flickr


Return to “Layouts and Operations”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: ClaudeBot and 2 guests