7mm Trethevy, NCR, SR 1930's.

Paul Cambridge

Western Thunderer
When Kelly Bray was operational, the fiddle yard was a massive 12 feet, laid out as a fan of five sidings. It was actually too big for the layout, as it was possible to send down goods trains in particular that were too long for the run round at the station. So as Chris says, one needs to balance the fiddle yard with what’s on the scenic boards.
Photos of Bodmin (SR) don’t show a lot of goods wagons, so short goods trains of up to 5 or 6 wagons would be prototypical. In addition to the gas works traffic, photos show fuel by tanker. They look like class B. I don’t know when this started or where it was unloaded in the yard. It finished in the early 60s at around the time all freight went from the station. There is a photo of a 1366 tank with one in the Middleton Pressp book - Branch Lines around Bodmin.
 

Peter Cross

Western Thunderer
Funnily I set my own minimum fiddle yard length as 1.3m. I've ended up with 1.35 which is loco and 2 coaches and, with a shorter loco, a van or two.

I did try for 3 coach trains but the longer fiddle meant I lost a chunk off the layout and I then noted that the regular services at Bodmin North were all two coach affairs.

Would be nice to have a few extra wagons in a goods train but that's not going to happen. I think the important thing is to balance fiddle yard, platform, loop and siding lengths. Think you're doing well on a tricky corner site.

I would like 2 coaches and a van if possible. I am lucky in so much as I need nothing bigger than a 4-4-0 with a small tender. Even if you want the ACE to come to town. You can get away with a loco and brake composite. Good excuse for a nice shiny new up to date carriage.

I think I'm going to try and get 1300 I can then have a 300 traverser at the end if possible. If not a couple of short hidden storage for swapping ends with the loco.
 

Peter Cross

Western Thunderer
When Kelly Bray was operational, the fiddle yard was a massive 12 feet, laid out as a fan of five sidings. It was actually too big for the layout, as it was possible to send down goods trains in particular that were too long for the run round at the station. So as Chris says, one needs to balance the fiddle yard with what’s on the scenic boards.
Photos of Bodmin (SR) don’t show a lot of goods wagons, so short goods trains of up to 5 or 6 wagons would be prototypical. In addition to the gas works traffic, photos show fuel by tanker. They look like class B. I don’t know when this started or where it was unloaded in the yard. It finished in the early 60s at around the time all freight went from the station. There is a photo of a 1366 tank with one in the Middleton Pressp book - Branch Lines around Bodmin.

12feet that's the space I have for the layout. Mine being set in the 1930's the oil tanks are a bit modern. They changed the gasworks at Bodmin to oil storage after my period. But a nice train or two of coal aday is a useful movement. Especially as only a few wagons could be unloaded at a time. It seemed to be shipped in 5plank wagons rather than 7 and 8's.
As for balance I never saw the goods being anymore than 8 wagons. Leave a couple and pick up the empties. One thing about Bodmin in LSWR/SR days there was quite often a non corridor carriage hanging around for emergencies. So something like an old immigrant bogie might be on the build agenda. Must find out if Roxey are still producing Southwark bridge kits.
 

Peter Cross

Western Thunderer
Well after a long break from this I revisited the plans and had a pleasant couple of hours shoving timbers and sorting the check rails on the three way. I am now happy to print a working version and start sorting out the grounds for the layout to sit on. The base boards will be sitting on a frame attached to the walls to leave the floor free apart from maybe one leg.
I think I have enough material in stock to make the framing but can't do anything for a week as we are having a water tank fitted that will need to go through my ceiling into the loft space. I looking forward to actually doing something different to building stock. How long this will last is anybodys guess.
 

Pencarrow

Western Thunderer
Nice update Peter, I bet you'll be looking forward to making a start on the layout. The Pencarrow boards also sit on a frame attached to the wall. No legs required in my case as the front of the frame sits on storage cupboards. The frame is quite handy as you can separate the boards, turn them around or revise the location without layout legs hindering you.

IMAG6033.jpg

IMAG6068.jpg
 
Last edited:

Peter Cross

Western Thunderer
So the next question - when will the layout with no name get a name? Any candidates??

I have a few possibilities, but yet to see if I can work a story on any of them. Which would make life easier.
Trethevy, just as it's a place my sister lived.
Port Quin, to get a coastal feel.
Or Petherick, for the NCR connection. And I nearly bought a building plot there.

Open to suggestions and and your views. I've built 2 layouts in the past but never got around to naming either.
 
Peter

I have just found your thread which I have read with interest. Funnily enough, while I model the Midland in 1907, I have a strong interest in the LSWR and I am hoping to start a similar sized layout to yours, also in 31.5mm gauge, later this year.

Can I please offer a comment in the hope it may save you considerable frustration? What struck me about your design was the use of a slip on a curve. This is a tricky thing to do as K crossings on tangent track aren't fully checked on the real thing - and the problem only gets worse as you increase flange way width on our models. If you then add a curve it can make for very unreliable running.

I currently have two layouts, one of which is quite large and has five double junctions, most of which are on a curve. I use 32mm gauge, but I also use a wider back to back on my wheels - so the flangeways are around 1.25mm wide (narrower than those in Templot for 31.5mm gauge). I decided not to tempt fate and all of the diamonds on curves have switched K crossings - as per the example below:
Half of Double Junction with line to AOR and avoiding line comp.jpg

The curve through both legs is 4m radius. This works well and is relatively simple to do, but of course you do need to actuate the switches. I think if you are using tighter radius then this would be essential for reliable running, even in 31.5mm gauge. If you then add slips the clearance to the switch blades (which are very short) could be an issue.

I doubt that any pre-grouping companies used switched K crossings but I personally think it is the lesser of two evils.

Looking at your plan you could straighten the slip if the tracks around the loco release were all straight and angled back a bit further.

I do hope this is of help to you as I have found that K crossings can be an endless source of irritation.

Regards

Graeme Lewis
 

Peter Cross

Western Thunderer
Peter

I have just found your thread which I have read with interest. Funnily enough, while I model the Midland in 1907, I have a strong interest in the LSWR and I am hoping to start a similar sized layout to yours, also in 31.5mm gauge, later this year.

Can I please offer a comment in the hope it may save you considerable frustration? What struck me about your design was the use of a slip on a curve. This is a tricky thing to do as K crossings on tangent track aren't fully checked on the real thing - and the problem only gets worse as you increase flange way width on our models. If you then add a curve it can make for very unreliable running.

I currently have two layouts, one of which is quite large and has five double junctions, most of which are on a curve. I use 32mm gauge, but I also use a wider back to back on my wheels - so the flangeways are around 1.25mm wide (narrower than those in Templot for 31.5mm gauge). I decided not to tempt fate and all of the diamonds on curves have switched K crossings - as per the example below:
View attachment 97449

The curve through both legs is 4m radius. This works well and is relatively simple to do, but of course you do need to actuate the switches. I think if you are using tighter radius then this would be essential for reliable running, even in 31.5mm gauge. If you then add slips the clearance to the switch blades (which are very short) could be an issue.

I doubt that any pre-grouping companies used switched K crossings but I personally think it is the lesser of two evils.

Looking at your plan you could straighten the slip if the tracks around the loco release were all straight and angled back a bit further.

I do hope this is of help to you as I have found that K crossings can be an endless source of irritation.

Regards

Graeme Lewis


Thanks for your input Graeme.
I moved away from the plan with the double slip. I was trying to keep some of the Bodmin feel in a space that it wouldn't work. My ultimate aim is to build a layout of Bodmin, but that will need to wait until I have a space 8 metres long. Might be a while.
I will keep the switched k's in mind for future use anyway.
 

martin_wynne

Western Thunderer
Hello Martin,

Would you ( or other knowledgable members ) know if these were ever used on GWR lines ?

Hi Grahame,

Certainly. They are written up in detail on pages 52-55 of David Smith's book, with a drawing:

cvr_track_200px.jpg


cheers,

Martin.
 

Yorkshire Dave

Western Thunderer
I suspect switch diamonds/K crossings were more common than we thought. It's probably that we just didn't notice them. Less common now (based my observations) since Network Rail tend to replace, where they can, complex crossings with point ladders.
 
Dave - I have worked with British perway engineers in the distant past and I am sure they have told me similar stories about replacing diamonds with turnouts. I have also been told that switched diamonds can be a pain in terms of maintenance.

Peter - I think deleting the single/double slip is a very wise move. I looked back through your recent posts and the version with just turnouts has a very nice flow to it.

Regards

Graeme
 

Peter Cross

Western Thunderer
Just reread this to remember where I was and what was decided. I can't believe it's over a year and I've done nothing.
Well I think something may start to happen now. The plywood fairies came yesterday. Just 4 boards but I thought I can easily get more but we don't have space to store much.

IMG_20200614_104524753_HDR.jpg

Although Brazil sell lots of 8x4 sheets to the UK. Here it is 2.2x1.6, and odd thicknesses. I now need to forget a lifetime of mentally knowing the best cutting options.

Still unsure about the name. Trethevy is still top of the list. Maybe add a little like, Trethevy for tintagel and Boscastle. As the actual place is between the two, and grew because the railway was there.

Well come Tuesday I might be able to start cutting, once the car has been carted off to the garage, and I've cleaned up the oil slick it's made.
 
Top