Model Railways On-Line - Littlehempston - Part 4
Littlehempston Part 4 - Making it all Fit By Paul Plowman Few model railways, if any, are true representations of the prototype. Many modellers base their layouts on real locations but the moment we tighten a curve, shorten a platform or introduce a non-existent tunnel as a scenic break we are into the realms of fiction. Our fiction can extend from these simple concessions through to lines that might have been or schemes that have no location, no particular railway authority and no set period in time. Figure 1: Ficticous map of the South Devon Railway and branches to be represented in Paul Plowman's model railway layout. Our hobby is an art form. We are trying to create a moving 3-d image of a real or imaginary railway. My chosen scheme is a fictitious junction station on the South Devon Railway located adjacent to Littlehempston village with a branch down the Dart Valley to Dartmouth. The Ashburton Branch is as built between Ashburton and Staverton but between Staverton and Totnes I am imagining that the branch joins the main line Exeter side of Littlehempston (see figure 1). My task now is to plan how I will fit this scheme into the space, which I have available and how it will appear to the viewer. Probably the most contentious issue, which we have to deal with as railway modellers is that of space. We locate our layouts either in a space we already have in our households or in purpose built accommodation. Either way we always want more than is available or more than we can afford. However, we need to pause for a moment and ask ourselves how large a layout we are realistically capable of building. The answer is influenced by two principle factors, the level of detail we propose to incorporate into our modelling and our age. Our objective should be achievable in our lifetime. We should also consider whether we might run out of steam if we take on too big a task. Building baseboards is a chore for most of us and on a big layout it might be many months or even years before the first train can be run. On this basis it was my judgement that building a layout in half of a generous double garage was an achievable objective. As it turned out (see Part 2 of this series) I found myself with a room measuring 7m x 7m. My immediate thought was I could now build a layout larger than originally planned. However, the room has two windows and an external door on one wall, the north wall. A layout filling the room would need a lift out section at the door. The door opens inwards and cannot be reversed because it has a steel frame. What could I locate along this wall? I would not want hidden sidings extending across a lift-out section or rolling stock stored in direct sunlight and I would not want to put back-scenes in front of the windows or door. So really this side of the room was useless. There were a limited number of possible configurations for a layout, simple oval, figure of eight or folded eight. Numerous possibilities were sketched out. I set myself an aim of achieving a minimum radius of five feet for the running lines in the visible area and in the end only a simple oval would work successfully. The only change to my original half garage concept was to widen the baseboard along the middle of the room from 3’-0” to 3’-6”. Figure 2: Arrangement of model railway room and garage. The configuration of the layout room and extended garage is shown in figure 2. The layout will occupy the back half of the room away from windows and sunlight. Hidden sidings will be located along the back (south) wall and the station will be at the front of the layout. The layout will be 22’-8” long by 12’-10” deep with the remaining area used for viewing and my study. Now I seem to have painted myself into a corner! The traditional oval with hidden sidings on one side and a station on the other is probably the most often adopted layout configuration. How can I make such a layout look like a plausible junction station as shown in figure 1? My first challenge is the scenic breaks. Do I go for the traditional tunnel or try something different? The first tunnel Exeter side of Littlehempston is Dainton but that is over three miles away. The first tunnel to the West is Marley. That is about six miles away and Totnes lies between. If I do use tunnels for scenic breaks how will the two junctions either side of the station fit in? The junction for the Dartmouth Branch would probably have been located Exeter side of the existing Dart river bridge on the main line, nearly a mile from Littlehempston and beyond the limits of my model. While the junction for Dartmouth was a genuine “might have been” a revised scheme for the Ashburton Branch junction is total fiction and it is up to me to work out a possible alignment. From contour mapping there is high ground between the two existing railways. To minimise gradients and earthworks the junction would need to be located Exeter side of the Tally Ho occupation bridge over half a mile from Littlehempston. Again this would be beyond the limits of my model. Having the junctions so far from the station allows me to omit them from the model but their implied presence means I cannot use tunnels as scenic breaks. So what are my options? Option one is to use tunnels and be dammed or option two is to use overline bridges, if they exist. Exeter side we have already identified Tally Ho occupation bridge half a mile away. Plymouth side there is another occupation bridge about a third of a mile away. The junction signals for the Ashburton Branch would have been located before the Tally Ho Bridge and so will be included in the model while the junction signals for the Dartmouth Branch would almost certainly have been beyond the bridge towards Plymouth. However, this is where ‘art’ comes in and I propose to model the junction signals adjacent to the bridge. Although the junctions will be off stage the operator will never the less have to work the signals for the branch trains. Using bridges as scenic breaks presents an interesting modelling challenge to make the effect realistic. Fortunately the configuration of my room prevents viewers from getting close to the far side of the layout, unless they want to crawl into the operating area. Tree growth and a strategically placed farm structure obscure the view of the real Tally Ho Bridge. Before embarking on the design of a track layout for Littlehempston Station I first need to establish the services, which will be operated. I don’t need to worry about a timetable at this stage but I do need to identify the types of trains I will run and the facilities I will need to operate them. Firstly there are the express trains, which operated between Paddington and Plymouth, the Cornish Riviera Express, the Royal Duchy and the Mayflower. In addition there was the Cornishman, a through express from Wolverhampton and Birmingham. None of these services stopped between Newton Abbot and Plymouth with the exception of the Royal Duchy, which stopped at Totnes. Depending on loading some services made an additional unscheduled stop at Newton Abbot to attach a pilot loco for the steeply graded section beyond. A pilot attached at Newton Abbot would work all the way to Plymouth and vice versa. Kings or Castles usually hauled these express services. A Castle could take eight coaches unassisted over the South Devon banks while a King could take 10. Photographs of Kings with 12 coaches include a pilot. Pilot locos seem to have been anything available, Granges, Halls, Manors, Castles and even Kings. To provide for these services I am hoping to have one hidden siding in each direction able to take two locos plus 10 coaches. There were four down and five up stopping trains serving the seven stations between Newton Abbot and Plymouth. Due to the severe gradients Granges, Manors and Moguls worked these services. All of the stations along the line could take at least seven 54ft long coaches. If we allow for the loco standing back from the starting signals it would appear that the maximum possible length of stopping train would be six coaches. Unrebuilt Bulleid Pacifics were also used on these services to enable Southern crews to keep their route knowledge up to date for working weekend diversions when the route via Oakhampton was closed for engineering work. I have searched but cannot find photographic evidence of rebuilt Bulleid’s or other Southern classes working these services. Presumably other classes must have been used before WWII. There were also six daily services over the Ashburton Branch. Additionally there were several inter-regional services to Plymouth from places as far a field as Leeds. Operation of goods trains over this steeply graded route also presented the operators with some interesting challenges. Goods trains seem to have been limited to about 30 wagons and were hauled by a mixture of ex-GW motive power. Assistance of bankers was only provided on the rising gradients, Newton Abbot to Dainton, Totnes to Rattery and in the up direction, Plymton to Hemerdon and Totnes to Dainton. Bankers were often Class 41xx 2-6-2T’s but again anything could be used. In later times BR Class 9F 2-10-0’s were available. Smaller motive power was used for the pick-up goods. Even a Pannier tank with about 15 wagons needed banking assistance. There was a daily goods from Newton Abbot to Ashburton, reversing at Totnes. This train might also include wagons for Totnes. The Dartmouth Branch was a “might have been” because in 1840 an Admiralty Committee recommended to the Government that Dartmouth become the port for mail steam packet ships from the West Indies. The local MP for Dartmouth, Sir Henry Seale proposed a branch from the main line at Totnes to Dartmouth. The railway would have saved two days on the journey to London rather than staying with the ship. As it turned out the Government in its superior wisdom chose Southampton. Had they followed Admiralty advice Dartmouth could have developed as a port of some significance. The railway operations at Littlehempston therefore need to reflect a busy port down the branch at Dartmouth. There would have been at least one passenger train daily each way from Paddington carrying ocean mails and possibly one from Wolverhampton to the quay. If we extend the Ashburton Branch services to Dartmouth Town Station that would account for six stopping trains. There would have been a daily pick up goods serving intermediate stations along the branch and possibly two or more from further a field serving the port. Roughly we are talking about some 48 movements daily, excluding light engines, through Littlehempston. It looks as though I have created a busy location! (To be continued).
Few model railways, if any, are true representations of the prototype. Many modellers base their layouts on real locations but the moment we tighten a curve, shorten a platform or introduce a non-existent tunnel as a scenic break we are into the realms of fiction. Our fiction can extend from these simple concessions through to lines that might have been or schemes that have no location, no particular railway authority and no set period in time.
Figure 1: Ficticous map of the South Devon Railway and branches to be represented in Paul Plowman's model railway layout.
Our hobby is an art form. We are trying to create a moving 3-d image of a real or imaginary railway. My chosen scheme is a fictitious junction station on the South Devon Railway located adjacent to Littlehempston village with a branch down the Dart Valley to Dartmouth. The Ashburton Branch is as built between Ashburton and Staverton but between Staverton and Totnes I am imagining that the branch joins the main line Exeter side of Littlehempston (see figure 1).
My task now is to plan how I will fit this scheme into the space, which I have available and how it will appear to the viewer.
Probably the most contentious issue, which we have to deal with as railway modellers is that of space. We locate our layouts either in a space we already have in our households or in purpose built accommodation. Either way we always want more than is available or more than we can afford. However, we need to pause for a moment and ask ourselves how large a layout we are realistically capable of building. The answer is influenced by two principle factors, the level of detail we propose to incorporate into our modelling and our age. Our objective should be achievable in our lifetime. We should also consider whether we might run out of steam if we take on too big a task. Building baseboards is a chore for most of us and on a big layout it might be many months or even years before the first train can be run. On this basis it was my judgement that building a layout in half of a generous double garage was an achievable objective. As it turned out (see Part 2 of this series) I found myself with a room measuring 7m x 7m.
My immediate thought was I could now build a layout larger than originally planned. However, the room has two windows and an external door on one wall, the north wall. A layout filling the room would need a lift out section at the door. The door opens inwards and cannot be reversed because it has a steel frame. What could I locate along this wall? I would not want hidden sidings extending across a lift-out section or rolling stock stored in direct sunlight and I would not want to put back-scenes in front of the windows or door. So really this side of the room was useless. There were a limited number of possible configurations for a layout, simple oval, figure of eight or folded eight. Numerous possibilities were sketched out. I set myself an aim of achieving a minimum radius of five feet for the running lines in the visible area and in the end only a simple oval would work successfully. The only change to my original half garage concept was to widen the baseboard along the middle of the room from 3’-0” to 3’-6”.
Figure 2: Arrangement of model railway room and garage.
The configuration of the layout room and extended garage is shown in figure 2. The layout will occupy the back half of the room away from windows and sunlight. Hidden sidings will be located along the back (south) wall and the station will be at the front of the layout. The layout will be 22’-8” long by 12’-10” deep with the remaining area used for viewing and my study.
Now I seem to have painted myself into a corner! The traditional oval with hidden sidings on one side and a station on the other is probably the most often adopted layout configuration. How can I make such a layout look like a plausible junction station as shown in figure 1? My first challenge is the scenic breaks. Do I go for the traditional tunnel or try something different? The first tunnel Exeter side of Littlehempston is Dainton but that is over three miles away. The first tunnel to the West is Marley. That is about six miles away and Totnes lies between. If I do use tunnels for scenic breaks how will the two junctions either side of the station fit in? The junction for the Dartmouth Branch would probably have been located Exeter side of the existing Dart river bridge on the main line, nearly a mile from Littlehempston and beyond the limits of my model. While the junction for Dartmouth was a genuine “might have been” a revised scheme for the Ashburton Branch junction is total fiction and it is up to me to work out a possible alignment. From contour mapping there is high ground between the two existing railways. To minimise gradients and earthworks the junction would need to be located Exeter side of the Tally Ho occupation bridge over half a mile from Littlehempston. Again this would be beyond the limits of my model.
Having the junctions so far from the station allows me to omit them from the model but their implied presence means I cannot use tunnels as scenic breaks. So what are my options? Option one is to use tunnels and be dammed or option two is to use overline bridges, if they exist. Exeter side we have already identified Tally Ho occupation bridge half a mile away. Plymouth side there is another occupation bridge about a third of a mile away. The junction signals for the Ashburton Branch would have been located before the Tally Ho Bridge and so will be included in the model while the junction signals for the Dartmouth Branch would almost certainly have been beyond the bridge towards Plymouth. However, this is where ‘art’ comes in and I propose to model the junction signals adjacent to the bridge. Although the junctions will be off stage the operator will never the less have to work the signals for the branch trains. Using bridges as scenic breaks presents an interesting modelling challenge to make the effect realistic. Fortunately the configuration of my room prevents viewers from getting close to the far side of the layout, unless they want to crawl into the operating area. Tree growth and a strategically placed farm structure obscure the view of the real Tally Ho Bridge.
Before embarking on the design of a track layout for Littlehempston Station I first need to establish the services, which will be operated. I don’t need to worry about a timetable at this stage but I do need to identify the types of trains I will run and the facilities I will need to operate them. Firstly there are the express trains, which operated between Paddington and Plymouth, the Cornish Riviera Express, the Royal Duchy and the Mayflower. In addition there was the Cornishman, a through express from Wolverhampton and Birmingham. None of these services stopped between Newton Abbot and Plymouth with the exception of the Royal Duchy, which stopped at Totnes. Depending on loading some services made an additional unscheduled stop at Newton Abbot to attach a pilot loco for the steeply graded section beyond. A pilot attached at Newton Abbot would work all the way to Plymouth and vice versa. Kings or Castles usually hauled these express services. A Castle could take eight coaches unassisted over the South Devon banks while a King could take 10. Photographs of Kings with 12 coaches include a pilot. Pilot locos seem to have been anything available, Granges, Halls, Manors, Castles and even Kings. To provide for these services I am hoping to have one hidden siding in each direction able to take two locos plus 10 coaches. There were four down and five up stopping trains serving the seven stations between Newton Abbot and Plymouth. Due to the severe gradients Granges, Manors and Moguls worked these services. All of the stations along the line could take at least seven 54ft long coaches. If we allow for the loco standing back from the starting signals it would appear that the maximum possible length of stopping train would be six coaches. Unrebuilt Bulleid Pacifics were also used on these services to enable Southern crews to keep their route knowledge up to date for working weekend diversions when the route via Oakhampton was closed for engineering work. I have searched but cannot find photographic evidence of rebuilt Bulleid’s or other Southern classes working these services. Presumably other classes must have been used before WWII. There were also six daily services over the Ashburton Branch. Additionally there were several inter-regional services to Plymouth from places as far a field as Leeds.
Operation of goods trains over this steeply graded route also presented the operators with some interesting challenges. Goods trains seem to have been limited to about 30 wagons and were hauled by a mixture of ex-GW motive power. Assistance of bankers was only provided on the rising gradients, Newton Abbot to Dainton, Totnes to Rattery and in the up direction, Plymton to Hemerdon and Totnes to Dainton. Bankers were often Class 41xx 2-6-2T’s but again anything could be used. In later times BR Class 9F 2-10-0’s were available. Smaller motive power was used for the pick-up goods. Even a Pannier tank with about 15 wagons needed banking assistance. There was a daily goods from Newton Abbot to Ashburton, reversing at Totnes. This train might also include wagons for Totnes.
The Dartmouth Branch was a “might have been” because in 1840 an Admiralty Committee recommended to the Government that Dartmouth become the port for mail steam packet ships from the West Indies. The local MP for Dartmouth, Sir Henry Seale proposed a branch from the main line at Totnes to Dartmouth. The railway would have saved two days on the journey to London rather than staying with the ship. As it turned out the Government in its superior wisdom chose Southampton. Had they followed Admiralty advice Dartmouth could have developed as a port of some significance. The railway operations at Littlehempston therefore need to reflect a busy port down the branch at Dartmouth. There would have been at least one passenger train daily each way from Paddington carrying ocean mails and possibly one from Wolverhampton to the quay. If we extend the Ashburton Branch services to Dartmouth Town Station that would account for six stopping trains. There would have been a daily pick up goods serving intermediate stations along the branch and possibly two or more from further a field serving the port. Roughly we are talking about some 48 movements daily, excluding light engines, through Littlehempston. It looks as though I have created a busy location!