RMW "Layout & Track Design" - all change............

[Nearholmer]

I think I got a bit lost in there, Halsey.

 

Glad it's proving entertaining, but a sketch would certainly help.

 

K

[halsey]

I'll try to sort better detail over the next few days BUT to keep it simple ...............

 

if you ignore all I've said and simply project the original/attached plan to utilize the fiddle yard lines to be the 2 loops around the room (and the outer track to be the feed to the branch/yard off to the left) then my question is........

 

given that the plan attached provides for one crossover between the 2 loops do I need another one does it matter where it is and which way should it face?

 

Hope that helps

[davepen]

I'd assumed the top two tracks were the loop.

The next the goods loop.

If it was mine, I'd move the current cross over to the inner loop at the rhs C to the lhs C.  Then could make a double slip above A.

I'd then possibly add a trailing cross over at the lhs C.

At the rhs C I'd have a single slip to form the trailing cross over to the outer loop.

Then a goods train could depart in either direction.

 

This layout can be seen at Broadway and Winchcombe.  (the original thread asked for a GWR goods yard)

www.s-r-s.org.uk/html/gwg/S2630.htm and S2632. 

 

Both add a siding on the north bound (outer loop) side.

At Broadway the yard was separated from the station by a road bridge.

 

 

 

 

 

[halsey]

hi

 

Either I'm confused or my post was confusing (sorry) - using your sketch the top track is a branch feed going off to the top left of sketch using a RH turnout (not a loop - no space) the next 2 tracks form the double loop hence my question as to how the would/should any crossovers work ?

 

If possible please stick to the original as closely as you can just revisiting the crossovers as quite a lot is now purchased and fits well but the crossovers can be altered as the main one is formed by 2 "Y" turnouts and the other with either 2 LH or 2 RH yet to be purchased (or found on ebay).

 

Many thanks for your interest and help it is really helping me.

[Chimer]

If the lowest of the 3 lines is indeed the right-to-left main line, then the existing crossover should probably be changed to trailing (left-hand points) as facing crossovers were generally avoided where possible.  But the bigger problem is that you have three separate trailing points feeding different parts of the yard off the main line which seems most unlikely.  You really want the yard accessed by a single trailing point, which is the way your plan would work if the top two lines were the running lines.  Also your top line (the "branch feed" as you call it) isn't connected to anything else which seems odd if it's a branch.  If it were the left-to-right running line, that would be quite normal, as you'd have a yard only shuntable by trains running in one direction (right-to-left), which was quite a common arrangement.

 

Whether or not you need another crossover (or two!) depends on how you intend to operate the layout as a whole.  If you intend reversing trains in your fiddle yard, you need a trailing crossover at each end of the FY so they can get on to the correct running line as they leave.

 

Another random thought - have you considered having your operating well on the top side of your diagram?  Then the main lines wouldn't have to curve across the corners of the yard, thus giving you more space to play with at each end. 

 

Cheers

 

Chris

Edited November 26, 2015 by Chimer

[halsey]

Hi,

On my original the top branch line (which only runs off to the left ) is connected to the "middle" left to right running line with a RH turnout roughly below the word "rear" which I think fits in with your thoughts

I do have to operate at the "bottom" of the plan

Edited November 26, 2015 by halsey5455

[davepen]

Sorry to confuse.  I'd assumed the top two lines were the running lines. (running loops round the room)

I hadn't consider a branch (???)

 

So where labelled Fiddle 1.  You'd have from the top, Left to right, right to left, then a headshunt.

Over at fiddle 2, Left to right, right to left and then the milk platform.

 

So the third road become the goods line with a headshunt and a milk platform off each side.

The rest of the yard then was off the Double slip (etc,) and can be as before.

I hadn't shown this on my sketch.

[halsey]

sorry but not quite right (the problem is my making in plagiarising someone else's plan)

 

where labelled fiddle 1 - the top line is the branch as described running off to the left (fed with a RH turnout roughly at point C) then right to left main line then left to right main line then the short siding (at point A) etc.......

 

fiddle 2 is exactly as you describe it

 

I had assumed the headshunt would be below the warehouse (or on the inside main line)

 

to clarify I'm not paranoid about good prototypical practice but much more good model railway operation in a very small space - but it's not a train set!

 

Continuing thanks

[Nearholmer]

Two approaches to a junction between a single-line branch, and a double-track main line.

 

The first is appropriate for a steam age passenger railway (no facing points), the second is the sort of thing that is implemented these days,where space permits (cheaper to maintain).

 

Kevin

[halsey]

thanks - in either case why the short section to the right of the turnout on the branch "entrance" (more points to buy!) - if needed what is min length?

Could you perhaps address my crossover question earlier in todays posts 7.43am responding to you?

 

many thanks

 

Have to leave now back in touch tonight.

[jon_1066]

I'll try to sort better detail over the next few days BUT to keep it simple ...............

 

if you ignore all I've said and simply project the original/attached plan to utilize the fiddle yard lines to be the 2 loops around the room (and the outer track to be the feed to the branch/yard off to the left) then my question is........

 

given that the plan attached provides for one crossover between the 2 loops do I need another one does it matter where it is and which way should it face?

 

Hope that helps

 

Short answer "No"

 

Long answer - You already have the "modern" configuration by the sound of it so can save yourself two points.  If you wanted to go with prototype then using the bottom line as a running line is not good since it has a multitude of sidings all coming off it.  You may be better having a goods line and a passenger line rather than an up and down.  ie two lines with bidirectional running on both.  The outer line could have passenger and goods traffic, the inner line would be restricted to goods and empty carriages (ie no paying public)

[Grovenor]

The first is appropriate for a steam age passenger railway (no facing points),

 

Well, only 3 facing points!

in either case why the short section to the right of the turnout on the branch "entrance" 

 

That's the "trap" required if the branch is a goods line, not necessarily if the Branch is a passenger line but sometimes provided anyway.

Could you perhaps address my crossover question earlier in todays posts 7.43am responding to you?

 

Was it not answered at 09:24?

Regards

[davepen]

So something like the attached.

 

The "crossing" could be replaced by two points as suggested in the "Modern" junction.

Two other points could be replaced by a double slip as mentioned before.

 

A trailing crossing could be added on the main running lines, above this double slip, but looks too busy with the branch junction.  I might be tempted to add something else on the outer main line, but not sure what. 

[Nearholmer]

First, Davepen's diagram above looks like a very good one to me, both practical and realistic, and I think it answers your crossover query. Personally, I would put a double-slip where he has shown "double-slip?". (BTW, do I notice a bit of LU road naming conventional creeping in Mr Pen?)

 

Second, why those "run on sections" to the right of the branch junctions in my sketch? In a real railway, they form "traps", so that if a train coming from the branch passes the signal giving entry to the main line when it is set to danger, said train ends-up in a dead-end, rather than on or foul-of the main line, where a passing main line train could slam into it. In real applications, they usually end in a sand drag, to give the over-running train a (fairly) soft stop.

 

In model railway practice, they serve no useful purpose, except to make things look faintly more realistic (and cost you more money for points!).

 

(Grovenor - well spotted. I meant to end the sentence "....... on the up main."

Edited November 26, 2015 by Nearholmer

[halsey]

Thanks for this everyone - I'll have to have a further think tomorrow (just concluded a very long alcoholic lunch!) but my immediate reaction is I simply haven't got room for the further turnout activity around the branch and to the left as I only have room for a single point before I need to start climbing a 3% gradient as early as possible after what was my initial RH point location which was above the words "double slip" on the latest davepen sketch.

 

The latest sketch tends to suggest that I need to (and can) locate 2 RH points (not the 2 LH as per my very first post today) to the left of the layout i.e. out of picture.

 

Thanks all - more tomorrow when this has been played with real bits on the baseboards

 

FYI the baseboard depth relevant to the location of the above is 32" is that OK?

[Chimer]

I do hope this doesn't confuse the issue further .... the points are Streamline small radius and the curves are 2nd and 3rd radius setrack.  I've taken 9' x 7' as the available space.

 

The first diagram tries to pull together a couple of points people have made - it incorporates the "steam-era" branch junction top right with a single trailing access to the yard from the right-to-left running line, so a freight reverses into the siding parallel to the main, then draws forward as much of the train as it needs into the headshunt, then gets on and shunts clear of the main line.  The flow of the junction could certainly be improved a bit but I wanted to get my thoughts down reasonably quickly!  And I've put a line across at 32".

 

 

The second diagram shows how much more space you would have to play with operating from the other side.  I deliberately haven't altered the yard layout at all, but you obviously would spread things out a bit, and straighten the first headshunt, given the extra room.

 

 

Maybe more food for thought? 

 

Cheers

 

Chris

[Nearholmer]

Chimes & Halsey

 

If you look at my layout thread (see blue link below), you will see that I am a fan of the "put the circuit near the operating well, and the sidings nearest the outer walls" approach, precisely for the reasons outlined. However .......

 

In this context, I understand that the branch needs to climb, to get to a terminus above the fiddle yard, and it is definitely easier to construct such a feature, and more visually appealing, if the branch is "outside", rather than "inside" the main lines.

 

The other thing to watch is how far you can reach into the corners, which is a function of whether you sit or stand to operate, and whether there are tall scenic structures. Once I've got round to building the station canopies on my layout, I know that I will have to make a "fishing rod" to uncouple locos from trains terminating in the bay platform!

 

Kevin

[Nick Holliday]

Having contributed my two-pennyworth right at the beginning of this topic, I have rather lost the plot with regard to the myriad of plans appearing and being discussed, so I might be talking about the wrong scheme, but...

To my mind the number of short sidings that seem to be proposed is a waste of space and resources.  In Chimer's proposal there are at least 5 sidings which are less than 12 inches long.  By the time you have made a realistic allowance for the point itself, and established a clearing point for passing traffic, not to mention allowing for the necessary buffer stop, I reckon you'd be hard pushed to park one wagon inside it.  I know this could occasionally occur on the real thing, but usually for a good reason, and, as far as I can see, the area is meant to be a general yard.  Far better to prune most of them, saving several points and buffers, and actually leaving you with greater siding space.

[halsey]

WOW thanks for the effort - I have just been playing with the final suggestion from davepen yesterday and it doesn't work primarily because of the gradient issues - this has got my grey matter working well this morning and I was just about to try to create a hand sketched cut and pasted plan to attach here BUT I've just found Chimers 1st plan (the second one doesn't work for me) and it looks good and doable and possibly an improvement - I will now go and play some more but have 2 questions

 

will this marry well with Nearholmers sketched marshalling yard which I have located on the inside loop on the opposite side of the room (behind me as it were) and if these two plans are combined do I need any further crossover provision on the main lines and should this/these be formed from 2 LH or 2 RH points?

 

FYI - my branch line will be taken from Freezers 60 plans for small locations and is SP38 without the loco shed.

 

I'm committed to creating the 2 main loops (and therefore really need to sort the points detail) and the branch line and its 3% gradient access first (because its at maximum reach at the back)so I can get on with playing trains and modelling experiments then phase 2 will be the marshalling yard and then phase 3 probably next winter the main goods yard once my skills have improved but following so many threads it seems as though it would be right to sort the overall design first - hence all this activity.

 

Next steps - I am going to sort a sketch of where I was at pre Chimer as this feels a better fit but incorporating Nicks clean it up a bit comments as well.

 

Thanks all for now

Edited November 27, 2015 by halsey5455

[halsey]

Hi all - this is where I'm at and where it would be good to 95% stay (unless you know different) but I still have a question about main line crossovers do I need another one - please don't look for prototype compliance but good fun playing trains (not train set) using setrack radius 2 3 (and 4 on the branch) rest all streamline  - do your worst - please be gentle and above all please don't dishearten me as I would really like to move on and start laying out phase 1!

[Chimer]

Chimes & Halsey

 

If you look at my layout thread (see blue link below), you will see that I am a fan of the "put the circuit near the operating well, and the sidings nearest the outer walls" approach, precisely for the reasons outlined. However .......

 

In this context, I understand that the branch needs to climb, to get to a terminus above the fiddle yard, and it is definitely easier to construct such a feature, and more visually appealing, if the branch is "outside", rather than "inside" the main lines.

 

The other thing to watch is how far you can reach into the corners, which is a function of whether you sit or stand to operate, and whether there are tall scenic structures. Once I've got round to building the station canopies on my layout, I know that I will have to make a "fishing rod" to uncouple locos from trains terminating in the bay platform!

 

Kevin

 

I agree about the branch being better outside, but couldn't immediately think of a way of achieving it - possibly with more time there might be a way.  I'm not sure if that's why it doesn't work for Halsey ... but if it doesn't, I guess it doesn't. 

 

Having contributed my two-pennyworth right at the beginning of this topic, I have rather lost the plot with regard to the myriad of plans appearing and being discussed, so I might be talking about the wrong scheme, but...

To my mind the number of short sidings that seem to be proposed is a waste of space and resources.  In Chimer's proposal there are at least 5 sidings which are less than 12 inches long.  By the time you have made a realistic allowance for the point itself, and established a clearing point for passing traffic, not to mention allowing for the necessary buffer stop, I reckon you'd be hard pushed to park one wagon inside it.  I know this could occasionally occur on the real thing, but usually for a good reason, and, as far as I can see, the area is meant to be a general yard.  Far better to prune most of them, saving several points and buffers, and actually leaving you with greater siding space.

 

I just did a quick translation of the yard plan Halsey seemed to like into xtrckcad without worrying too much about siding lengths (most could be significantly longer) ... it's not how I would lay a yard out but I can see it would be fun to shunt - iirc correctly the original designer did it as a shunting puzzle.

 

Hi all - this is where I'm at and where it would be good to 95% stay (unless you know different) but I still have a question about main line crossovers do I need another one - please don't look for prototype compliance but good fun playing trains (not train set) using setrack radius 2 3 (and 4 on the branch) rest all streamline  - do your worst - please be gentle and above all please don't dishearten me as I would really like to move on and start laying out phase 1!

 

You need at least 1 and preferably 2 in the fiddle yard area so trains on the outer circuit can get into the FY.  You really don't want wrong road running all the way to the FY from the crossover by the yard every time you want to change a train on the outer, and if you follow the advice about a steam-era junction, there won't be a crossover by the yard anyway!

 

 

Cheers

 

 

Chris 

[Nearholmer]

Shadow of Halsey,

 

I originally sketched the fiddle/marshalling yard for a single-track mainline; on double-track, it should be as below.

 

I too think you could beneficially add a further trailing crossover to the main lines, at the "top" of you plan as suggested by Chimer.

 

Having done those two things, as a model railway, it will work, and be "prototypical enough". As a real railwayman, I do get awfully stressed about all the "shunting on the main" that will be necessary to get trains in and out of the goods yard, which threaten to hold-up all the trains full of fare-paying customers and result in hundreds of letters of complaint. But, 1:76 scale plastic customers are less easily upset than real ones!

 

Kevin

[halsey]

It feels as thought "we" might be getting there.

 

Re the fiddle yard crossover I'm beginning to struggle for length so had in fact put a second crossover just before/after the curves bearing in mind this is all behind scenic breaks - see plan

 

I am still struggling with facing crossovers etc terminology any chance of a sketch as to where it should be and which way - I am assuming that the current crossover shown between the branch and the creamery is OK.

 

similarly with my space issues Chimers top (1st) plan is a bit space/depth hungry

Edited November 27, 2015 by halsey5455

[Zomboid]

I don't know about peco, but the Hornby curved points link 2nd and 3rd radius, so you could get a crossover into a 90deg curve. Some people will tell you they're not the most reliable thing in the world; I have no personal experience, but that would save some space on the straights.

[Nearholmer]

What you've added bottom left is a trailing crossover, what you've shown towards top right is a facing crossover.

 

Now, some potentially good news: the trailing crossover at bottom left could perform a dual purpose, allowing engines to run around good trains that need to shunt to yard at the top, thereby obviating the need for a further crossover at top left.

 

And, a question: when a (passenger?) train descends from the branch, onto the outer main, where does it then go, other than "round and round for a while"? Are you envisaging backing it into the fiddle/ marshalling yard?

 

If so, commendably prototypical, but possibly a bit risky in a hidden fiddle-area on a model railway, in that propelling long trains through complex point-work, round corners occasionally has un intended outcomes.

 

Actually, that can be the case in reality too: I diverted SWMBO to come and watch a bit of shunting at a power station during a holiday in Ireland (think how delighted she was by that!). Anyway, long train of very light, empty bogie wagons, being propelled enthusiastically through trailing point-work. "They're asking for trouble." I said. "Why?" asked SWMBO. "Clang, bang, clatter, crash" said the wagons, as they formed a tangled pyramid before our eyes. "That's why." said I.

 

Kevin

Edited November 27, 2015 by Nearholmer