Model Railways On-Line - Littlehempston - Part 5
Littlehempston Part 5 - Designing the Layout By Paul Plowman Photo 1 Above: Building of the model has now reached the stage where all of the baseboards are complete, cork has been laid for a sub-base and a temporary OO track has been laid loosely using Peco Code 100 track recycled from a previous layout. Contour lines have been drawn on the baseboard to facilitate the construction of the ground profile. A Grange 4-6-0 pilots a Hall 4-6-0 coming up from Totnes towards Dainton summit, seen approaching Littlehempston. (Continued from Part 4) I was particularly looking for a possible historical reason for a more intense Southern operation through my fictitious station at Littlehempston on the South Devon Railway. The history of the London South Western Railway in Devon is in itself a fascinating story. The first railway to reach Exeter was the Bristol and Exeter Railway, which opened in 1844 followed by the South Devon Railway between Exeter and Teignmouth in 1846. Next was the group of railways collectively known as the North Devon Railway, which opened throughout to Bideford via Crediton and Barnstaple using the Broad Gauge on 28th July 1855. The LSWR did not reach Exeter (Queen Street) until 1860, some 16 years after the B&ER. The LSWR extension to St David’s was opened two years later on 1st February 1862. On the same day the LSWR also commenced a lease of the North Devon Railway and quickly added a third rail for standard gauge trains. Standard Gauge trains reached Bideford on 2nd March 1863. The whole of North Devon and Cornwall could so easily have become GWR territory. Google 1: An oblique view from a location over Totnes looking northwards. The South Devon main line is to the right of the picture and the preserved Dart Valley Railway is to the left. Littlehempston village is at the bottom right. Dainton Bank West is at the top of the picture. Google 2: An oblique view looking in the opposite direction, southwards. The town of Totnes is in the distance and Littlehempston is to the bottom left. What might have happened if Dartmouth had become a major port? By 1860 the South Devon Railway was short of cash. The “Atmospheric Caper” as it was called, cost the railway dearly. It was struggling to find funds for upgrading the weak timber bridges and viaducts, which Brunel had provided as a cost cutting measure. Our fictitious port of Dartmouth would have been losing traffic to Southampton, the Broad Gauge being a serious impediment to operations. Shipping would have been encouraged to use Southampton with its standard gauge connections thus avoiding all the hassle at changes of gauge. I have therefore extended my fiction to suppose that about 1862 the LSWR sought running powers between Exeter and Dartmouth Quay and that a cash strapped South Devon Railway was only too pleased to accept an offer for the additional traffic and the provision of a third rail for standard gauge trains. This agreement I suppose to have continued under GWR ownership and extended into the BR period. Southern trains would have changed engines when reversing at Exeter thus giving me an excuse to run almost anything that would have been found on Exmouth Junction Shed. In BR days the service would probably have consisted of one boat train from Waterloo and possibly one or two long distance goods trains from Feltham Yard. Having established the services, which will be represented my next task is to plan a layout over which they can be operated. Only one express service stopped at Totnes (The Royal Duchy) and none would be likely to have stopped at Littlehempston. The minimum length of the platforms at intermediate stations between Totnes and Plymouth therefore determines the length of the platforms required at Littlehempston. My platforms will be long enough to accommodate six Mk1 coaches with a large locomotive standing behind the starting signals. If the Ashburton Branch service is extended to Dartmouth there will be a requirement to provide a booked connection with the stopping trains between Newton Abbot and Plymouth at Littlehempston. Flexibility to avoid disruption to other services would be greatly improved by the provision of a loop with a third platform face. Google 3: An oblique view showing Hampstone Bridge 221m 34ch. Google 4: A view of Hampstone Bridge and the proposed site of my station looking southwards. In steam days bankers were attached to east bound goods trains at Totnes for the climb to Dainton. We could therefore expect to see goods trains with bankers already attached passing through Littlehempston in the up direction. The question now is where would the bankers be attached to goods trains coming up from Dartmouth? The rising gradient through Littlehempston is fairly easy and does not become seriously steep (1 in 37) until much closer to Dainton summit. It is conceivable that bankers would be attached to these trains at Littlehempston either using locos waiting there or coming up light from Totnes. My proposed loop would be an essential feature for holding goods trains awaiting attachment of a banker or as an overtaking facility. The loop would need to be as long as practicable. The maximum standage I can achieve in the space available is equivalent to a locomotive and eight Mk1 coaches. From an operational point of view the loop would be best located on the up side of the line and from a modelling point of view would be best located at the front of the baseboard closest to the viewing area as this would orientate the main station building on the down side with its canopy facing towards the viewer. To meet all of these preferences London needs to be on the left-hand side of the viewer, i.e. down trains travel in an anticlockwise direction around the layout. Littlehempston Layout Diagram. A station at Littlehempston would be unlikely to have a large goods yard. Most likely it would be comparable to the facilities, which existed at the other intermediate stations along the line. A small village would be unlikely to attract much custom especially with the more extensive facilities provided nearby at Totnes. I am proposing to provide no more than two short sidings with a loading dock and possibly a small goods shed. Trying to work out how the yard should be accessed has provided a challenge. I noticed that the simple yard at Gara Bridge on the Kingsbridge Branch was entered through a facing connection in the down line. This was not a desirable configuration because facing points are costly both in capital outlay and maintenance. However, it occurred to me that the same arrangement at Littlehempston would double up as a trap point providing a clear overlap for the Down Main starting signal. When the siding points are reversed a down train can enter the down main platform at the same time as a train departs in the down direction from either the Up Main or the Loop (See Layout Diagram). Photo 2: Hampstone Bridge 221m 34ch. Viewed from the down side (east side). The small stone bridge carrying the road over the stream can just be seen through the centre span. Photo 3: Identification plate attached to Hampstone Bridge. Having planned my track layout the next requirement before construction could commence was to establish how the baseboards should be built, or more specifically, where would I have cuttings and embankments. Now, the South Devon Railway follows a watercourse from Dainton down to Totnes. Generally the railway is close to the bottom of the valley not very high above a stream. There are both overline and underline bridges in this section but no high viaducts. I have long realised that this project will be my last opportunity to build a model railway of this size. There is always the possibility that we might move home sometime in the future and if this happens moving my layout might delay progress with its construction for several years. I therefore decided that the layout would not be built in situ. I am building it on conventional baseboards that could best be described as ‘moveable’ rather than ‘portable’. I also decided that for simplicity of construction the steel supporting frame (See Part 2 in this series) would be built to a constant level. The baseboards have been built from 12mm plywood, including the sides and stiffeners. Variations in height have been achieved by varying the depth of the sides. My plan is for the railway to be mostly on embankment with the station located in a shallow cutting. Again for simplicity all the baseboards in the front half of the layout closest to the viewer have plywood side panels three inches deep. The track will be supported on 6mm ply four inches above these baseboards. In consequence of this method of construction the plywood side panels to the hidden sidings are seven inches deep. Although seven inches depth might seem excessive for baseboards there is very little extra work involved. It has been just the cost of a little extra plywood and it has made construction so much simpler. Photo 4: Hampstone Bridge viewed from the up side (west side). The up and down lines are carried on seperate structures. The arches on the up side are the original Brunel structure designed to carry a single Broad Gauge track. After the gauge conversion the line was subsequently doubled and a new bridge built alongside. Finally I have to establish where I will locate bridges and to what extent I will be able to replicate the real Littlehempston village in model form. I was able to visit Littlehempston in 2004 while in the UK. Unfortunately I had not fully developed my scheme and I now find I need to return to take photographs, which I didn’t think of at the time. A fascinating feature at this location is a three span bridge with a road under the first span and a shallow stream spreading out under the other two spans (See Photo 2). What really makes this bridge so interesting is that the Down Line is on steel spans while the Up Line is on stone arches, a relic of the days when this was a single line (See Photo 4). Add to this the presence of a small stone arch bridge carrying a lane over the stream close by and the whole site just cries out for scenic modelling. Photo 5: Farm buildings viewed from the road junction visible in image Google 3, which are located in the area to be modelled. Late in 2007 Google Earth upgraded their imaging in South Devon. Littlehempston went from a fuzzy image barely locatable to a high definition where one can literally count individual sleepers. Google Earth has been absolutely brilliant for taking measurements, particularly the length of the bridge and the relative positions of buildings and features nearby. The location of the bridge at the reversal between two curves has provided a real challenge. I just do not have enough room on my layout to place the bridge at a reversal of curves and still fit three platforms. My imaginary station is located immediately south of the bridge seen in the Google image (See image Google 4). I had considered extending the loop across the road but this would change the character of the location significantly. It is my aim to replicate the view seen in Photo 2 as closely as possible even though the bridge will be located on a curve. I am not planning to attempt to model Littlehempston village and the nearby farms to a very high standard. I would love to model the location to Pendon standards and I think I could do it but realistically not in my lifetime. So reluctantly there will have to be some compromises using suitable trade offerings just to give an impression of the village. Between Littlehempston and Totnes the railway crosses the stream another four times but on much shorter bridges. Here I am going to apply artistic licence by representing two of these crossing with three span bridges. Having planned the layout and the services I wish to run I have at long last reached the stage where I can commence track laying. But before I do there is just one more decision to be made, “the case for DCC and P4”! In my next article I will discuss the various factors, which eventually led me to adopting DCC and P4. (Images from Google Earth reproduced by kind permission of Google)
Photo 1 Above: Building of the model has now reached the stage where all of the baseboards are complete, cork has been laid for a sub-base and a temporary OO track has been laid loosely using Peco Code 100 track recycled from a previous layout. Contour lines have been drawn on the baseboard to facilitate the construction of the ground profile. A Grange 4-6-0 pilots a Hall 4-6-0 coming up from Totnes towards Dainton summit, seen approaching Littlehempston.
I was particularly looking for a possible historical reason for a more intense Southern operation through my fictitious station at Littlehempston on the South Devon Railway. The history of the London South Western Railway in Devon is in itself a fascinating story. The first railway to reach Exeter was the Bristol and Exeter Railway, which opened in 1844 followed by the South Devon Railway between Exeter and Teignmouth in 1846. Next was the group of railways collectively known as the North Devon Railway, which opened throughout to Bideford via Crediton and Barnstaple using the Broad Gauge on 28th July 1855. The LSWR did not reach Exeter (Queen Street) until 1860, some 16 years after the B&ER. The LSWR extension to St David’s was opened two years later on 1st February 1862. On the same day the LSWR also commenced a lease of the North Devon Railway and quickly added a third rail for standard gauge trains. Standard Gauge trains reached Bideford on 2nd March 1863. The whole of North Devon and Cornwall could so easily have become GWR territory.
Google 1: An oblique view from a location over Totnes looking northwards. The South Devon main line is to the right of the picture and the preserved Dart Valley Railway is to the left. Littlehempston village is at the bottom right. Dainton Bank West is at the top of the picture.
Google 2: An oblique view looking in the opposite direction, southwards. The town of Totnes is in the distance and Littlehempston is to the bottom left.
What might have happened if Dartmouth had become a major port? By 1860 the South Devon Railway was short of cash. The “Atmospheric Caper” as it was called, cost the railway dearly. It was struggling to find funds for upgrading the weak timber bridges and viaducts, which Brunel had provided as a cost cutting measure. Our fictitious port of Dartmouth would have been losing traffic to Southampton, the Broad Gauge being a serious impediment to operations. Shipping would have been encouraged to use Southampton with its standard gauge connections thus avoiding all the hassle at changes of gauge. I have therefore extended my fiction to suppose that about 1862 the LSWR sought running powers between Exeter and Dartmouth Quay and that a cash strapped South Devon Railway was only too pleased to accept an offer for the additional traffic and the provision of a third rail for standard gauge trains. This agreement I suppose to have continued under GWR ownership and extended into the BR period. Southern trains would have changed engines when reversing at Exeter thus giving me an excuse to run almost anything that would have been found on Exmouth Junction Shed. In BR days the service would probably have consisted of one boat train from Waterloo and possibly one or two long distance goods trains from Feltham Yard.
Having established the services, which will be represented my next task is to plan a layout over which they can be operated. Only one express service stopped at Totnes (The Royal Duchy) and none would be likely to have stopped at Littlehempston. The minimum length of the platforms at intermediate stations between Totnes and Plymouth therefore determines the length of the platforms required at Littlehempston. My platforms will be long enough to accommodate six Mk1 coaches with a large locomotive standing behind the starting signals. If the Ashburton Branch service is extended to Dartmouth there will be a requirement to provide a booked connection with the stopping trains between Newton Abbot and Plymouth at Littlehempston. Flexibility to avoid disruption to other services would be greatly improved by the provision of a loop with a third platform face.
Google 3: An oblique view showing Hampstone Bridge 221m 34ch.
Google 4: A view of Hampstone Bridge and the proposed site of my station looking southwards.
In steam days bankers were attached to east bound goods trains at Totnes for the climb to Dainton. We could therefore expect to see goods trains with bankers already attached passing through Littlehempston in the up direction. The question now is where would the bankers be attached to goods trains coming up from Dartmouth? The rising gradient through Littlehempston is fairly easy and does not become seriously steep (1 in 37) until much closer to Dainton summit. It is conceivable that bankers would be attached to these trains at Littlehempston either using locos waiting there or coming up light from Totnes. My proposed loop would be an essential feature for holding goods trains awaiting attachment of a banker or as an overtaking facility. The loop would need to be as long as practicable. The maximum standage I can achieve in the space available is equivalent to a locomotive and eight Mk1 coaches.
From an operational point of view the loop would be best located on the up side of the line and from a modelling point of view would be best located at the front of the baseboard closest to the viewing area as this would orientate the main station building on the down side with its canopy facing towards the viewer. To meet all of these preferences London needs to be on the left-hand side of the viewer, i.e. down trains travel in an anticlockwise direction around the layout.
Littlehempston Layout Diagram.
A station at Littlehempston would be unlikely to have a large goods yard. Most likely it would be comparable to the facilities, which existed at the other intermediate stations along the line. A small village would be unlikely to attract much custom especially with the more extensive facilities provided nearby at Totnes. I am proposing to provide no more than two short sidings with a loading dock and possibly a small goods shed. Trying to work out how the yard should be accessed has provided a challenge. I noticed that the simple yard at Gara Bridge on the Kingsbridge Branch was entered through a facing connection in the down line. This was not a desirable configuration because facing points are costly both in capital outlay and maintenance. However, it occurred to me that the same arrangement at Littlehempston would double up as a trap point providing a clear overlap for the Down Main starting signal. When the siding points are reversed a down train can enter the down main platform at the same time as a train departs in the down direction from either the Up Main or the Loop (See Layout Diagram).
Photo 2: Hampstone Bridge 221m 34ch. Viewed from the down side (east side). The small stone bridge carrying the road over the stream can just be seen through the centre span.
Photo 3: Identification plate attached to Hampstone Bridge.
Having planned my track layout the next requirement before construction could commence was to establish how the baseboards should be built, or more specifically, where would I have cuttings and embankments. Now, the South Devon Railway follows a watercourse from Dainton down to Totnes. Generally the railway is close to the bottom of the valley not very high above a stream. There are both overline and underline bridges in this section but no high viaducts. I have long realised that this project will be my last opportunity to build a model railway of this size. There is always the possibility that we might move home sometime in the future and if this happens moving my layout might delay progress with its construction for several years. I therefore decided that the layout would not be built in situ. I am building it on conventional baseboards that could best be described as ‘moveable’ rather than ‘portable’. I also decided that for simplicity of construction the steel supporting frame (See Part 2 in this series) would be built to a constant level. The baseboards have been built from 12mm plywood, including the sides and stiffeners. Variations in height have been achieved by varying the depth of the sides. My plan is for the railway to be mostly on embankment with the station located in a shallow cutting. Again for simplicity all the baseboards in the front half of the layout closest to the viewer have plywood side panels three inches deep. The track will be supported on 6mm ply four inches above these baseboards. In consequence of this method of construction the plywood side panels to the hidden sidings are seven inches deep. Although seven inches depth might seem excessive for baseboards there is very little extra work involved. It has been just the cost of a little extra plywood and it has made construction so much simpler.
Photo 4: Hampstone Bridge viewed from the up side (west side). The up and down lines are carried on seperate structures. The arches on the up side are the original Brunel structure designed to carry a single Broad Gauge track. After the gauge conversion the line was subsequently doubled and a new bridge built alongside.
Finally I have to establish where I will locate bridges and to what extent I will be able to replicate the real Littlehempston village in model form. I was able to visit Littlehempston in 2004 while in the UK. Unfortunately I had not fully developed my scheme and I now find I need to return to take photographs, which I didn’t think of at the time. A fascinating feature at this location is a three span bridge with a road under the first span and a shallow stream spreading out under the other two spans (See Photo 2). What really makes this bridge so interesting is that the Down Line is on steel spans while the Up Line is on stone arches, a relic of the days when this was a single line (See Photo 4). Add to this the presence of a small stone arch bridge carrying a lane over the stream close by and the whole site just cries out for scenic modelling.
Photo 5: Farm buildings viewed from the road junction visible in image Google 3, which are located in the area to be modelled.
Late in 2007 Google Earth upgraded their imaging in South Devon. Littlehempston went from a fuzzy image barely locatable to a high definition where one can literally count individual sleepers. Google Earth has been absolutely brilliant for taking measurements, particularly the length of the bridge and the relative positions of buildings and features nearby. The location of the bridge at the reversal between two curves has provided a real challenge. I just do not have enough room on my layout to place the bridge at a reversal of curves and still fit three platforms. My imaginary station is located immediately south of the bridge seen in the Google image (See image Google 4). I had considered extending the loop across the road but this would change the character of the location significantly. It is my aim to replicate the view seen in Photo 2 as closely as possible even though the bridge will be located on a curve.
I am not planning to attempt to model Littlehempston village and the nearby farms to a very high standard. I would love to model the location to Pendon standards and I think I could do it but realistically not in my lifetime. So reluctantly there will have to be some compromises using suitable trade offerings just to give an impression of the village.
Between Littlehempston and Totnes the railway crosses the stream another four times but on much shorter bridges. Here I am going to apply artistic licence by representing two of these crossing with three span bridges.
Having planned the layout and the services I wish to run I have at long last reached the stage where I can commence track laying. But before I do there is just one more decision to be made, “the case for DCC and P4”! In my next article I will discuss the various factors, which eventually led me to adopting DCC and P4.
(Images from Google Earth reproduced by kind permission of Google)