Templot Club Archive 2007-2020
|
|||
| author | remove search highlighting | ||
|---|---|---|---|
|
posted: 4 Feb 2018 01:12 from: John Palmer click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Following on from my Radstock effort, here's Evercreech Junction, focus of so much action on the S&D, and a station that has held me fascinated from childhood. I'm afraid this attempt is, in places, a bit rough and ready, but I've resolved most of the timbering conflicts and made it a reasonable fit on the 25" Ordnance plan. I have not uploaded a copy of that plan because (a) it's a bit rough and ready on the NLS site, with a bit of misalignment between the map tiles at the south end, and (b) the plan dates from about 1903, at which time neither the down yard nor the turntable and locomotive servicing facilities in the fork of the junction had yet been fully developed. Consequently I have had to do a fair amount of plotting that involves assumptions about the exact positions of these facilities as finally developed. Broadly the upload represents the layout as it existed in BR days, but before the down yard was lifted. Hope this may be of some interest, particularly to S&D aficionados. |
||
| Attachment: attach_2633_3205_evercreech_jc_2018_02_03_1848_55.box 274 | |||
|
posted: 4 Feb 2018 13:49 from: Martin Wynne
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Hi John, Many thanks for that. Was that just for fun, or do you have an aircraft hangar to hand?  Looking at this turnout, using a regular crossing there you have a reverse curve into the siding at the turnout road exit. I don't know how fussy the S&D were about such things, but if modelled and viewed end-on I think it would be noticeable. If you change that turnout from A-5 regular to A-6.5 curviform, and then make branch track from it for the siding, you will have a much better flow into the siding: 2_040830_490000000.png  Likewise the crossover ringed has a reverse curve at the middle of it because of the regular crossings, although not so noticeable. If for both of those turnouts you put the peg on FP (CTRL-4, press once only) and then change them to curviform, you should be able to orbit or snake one or other of the turnouts into better alignment with the other. If you temporarily extend the length of the turnout roads you will be able to see what you are doing. You may find that only the lower turnout of the two needs changing. cheers, Martin. |
||
|
posted: 4 Feb 2018 17:07 from: John Palmer click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
53' X 26' just to get in the layout as plotted! No, no hangar; this was purely a fun exercise. Many thanks for the suggestions, which I've tried to implement and which I hope have improved matters. One of the tricky aspects of this is fitting in the spur connecting to the turntable and to the Up Main (running north eastwards). This was equipped with an inspection pit and must, I think, have been of a length sufficient to accommodate a 7F, as otherwise a lot of undesirable backing and filling becomes necessary to get such an engine onto the Up Main for the return trip to Bath. Haven't yet checked the length of a Seven for this purpose, but if it won't fit the spur then a whole lot of extra work becomes necessary. Revised boxfile attached. |
||
| Attachment: attach_2634_3205_evercreech_jc_2018_02_04_1631_42.box 241 | |||
|
posted: 4 Feb 2018 19:22 from: Martin Wynne
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Hi John, That's better. But I found a closer match to a common alignment by changing the lower turnout to a B-7.5 and then orbit or snake it down into position: 2_041303_440000000.png  CTRL+F12 to temporarily extend the turnout road. However, disregarding all that, I managed to find you an extra 54mm on the spur by changing that turnout to a B-7, changing the B-8 to right-hand, and reverting it to a regular crossing (making the radius a bit tighter at 49"): 2_041411_240000000.png  I moved the turntable about 2mm to the right to make it all fit. cheers, Martin. |
||
|
posted: 5 Feb 2018 00:28 from: John Palmer click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Yes, that works well to get a better flow. I have attached a further boxfile incorporating these changes and a couple more. I have upped the turntable diameter to 60', which I think was the correct size, and checked that the spur can indeed accommodate a Seven, which was 58' 10" over buffers. Unfortunately this starts to push the turntable pit too far to the north-west, so that it almost encroaches into the bund which marked the western boundary of this part of the yard. Things are made even more difficult by the fact that the exit crossover from the locomotive spur to Up Main was taken out before closure, making Down Branch the only means of access to the table, with the spur becoming a kickback off the access track from the branch having no other connections. There appears to have been a single panel, perhaps a 45 footer, between the table and the toe of the point leading in to the spur, but possibly that reflects changes made when the connection to the Up Main was removed. Nevertheless my version seems likely to be wrong in this respect. Unfortunately I still haven't found a 25" or better Ordnance plan depicting the layout as it appears in this boxfile, so I need to mount a hunt for the 40' rating plan that I think I may have stashed away somewhere. What may be required is a move of the loco spur away from the Up Main a little, as currently it's a bit too close for my liking. That, however, may involve a major re-draw of the pointwork adjacent to the junction diamond. |
||
| Attachment: attach_2635_3205_evercreech_jc_2018_02_05_0006_35.box 245 | |||
|
posted: 5 Feb 2018 09:49 from: rodney_hills
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
John, "2016 - The 50ft turntable at Templecombe was too small to turn a 63ft '8F', and the Evercreech Junction turntable was 56ft. However, the actual wheelbase of an '8F' was 52ft 7in, which meant it would just ..." From: http://www.pressreader.com/uk/steam-railway-uk/20160129/281560879819589 "1 · 25 posts · 8 authors Page 1 of 2 - Templecombe turntable - posted in Somerset & Dorset Joint Railway Group: Templecombe's turntable was always stated as being 50 feet in diameter, frustratingly just too small for a 7F or ..." From: http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/39407-templecombe-turntable/ Regards, Rodney Hills |
||
|
posted: 5 Feb 2018 10:44 from: rodney_hills
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Hello again John,
EVERCREECH Jcn NORTH. New turntable and sidings, and signal alterations There are also some refs to 55' tables on MR LMSR... The pit diameter wil be slightly bigger than the table length. Descriptions can include either it seems Also, length is not the sole arbiter, loco has to be balanced. That may mean using outriders, or turning tender seperately Unlikely to occur on a regular basis. Regards, Rodney Hills |
||
| Last edited on 5 Feb 2018 10:48 by rodney_hills |
|||
|
posted: 5 Feb 2018 11:42 from: John Palmer click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Rodney, many thanks; I thought I knew Chris Osment's site pretty well but the index of signalling instructions is something I had not previously happened upon and contains lots of interesting information. The S&T department seem to have made an inordinate fuss about where the Junction's Down Branch Distant needed to be positioned! Frustratingly, it appears that a turntable was first installed at the Junction one year after the date of the most recent readily available 25" Ordnance plan. However, the text of Bradley and Milton's S&D Loco. History indicates that this original table was 50' in diameter, so the 56' version must have been a replacement. There is a good picture of a large boilered Seven being turned on it at plate 148 in 'The S&D - An English Cross Country Railway', and, with an overall wheelbase of about 49', it was probably not unduly difficult to achieve an acceptable balance of the engine on the table. I have corrected the turntable diameter acordingly and made a few other tidying up changes on the attached revision of the boxfile. |
||
| Attachment: attach_2636_3205_evercreech_jc_2018_02_05_1136_57.box 270 | |||
|
posted: 6 Feb 2018 01:38 from: Martin Wynne
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Hi John, Further to this track plan, see also: topic 3207 cheers, Martin. |
||
| Please read this important note about copyright: Unless stated otherwise, all the files submitted to this web site are copyright and the property of the respective contributor. You are welcome to use them for your own personal non-commercial purposes, and in your messages on this web site. If you want to publish any of this material elsewhere or use it commercially, you must first obtain the owner's permission to do so. |