Jump to content
 

Main line through station in N


jamespetts
 Share

Recommended Posts

Following advice received in this thread, I have produced a design for a simpler layout as a starting project.

 

This is a track layout for a four platform main line through station intended to be set on the Western region during the late 1980s/early 1990s. The platforms and fiddle yards at both ends are intended to take 8 carriage HSTs, and the carriage sidings (for trains terminating in the down direction) are intended to be able to take a mixture of diesel multiple units and 6-carriage rakes of mk1/mk2 carriages.

 

It is 7.5m long and 0.6m wide, and intended to fit on the rear wall of the model railway shed that I am planning to have built.

 

The track design is loosely inspired by Oxford, but it is not intended to be an exact replica of Oxford (not least because, if I recall correctly, that station was not regularly served by HSTs in the 1980s, the cross country services at that time being all locomotive hauled). The intention is that the HSTs, freight trains and some locomotive hauled cross country trains will provide through traffic (many of the HSTs not stopping), while locomotive hauled semi-fasts from London and DMUs from a more local origin will terminate and reverse in the carriage sidings, with a separate single track branch service on the down line.

 

Getting in enough space for an 8-car HST in the platforms and both fiddle yards was more difficult that I imagined for N gauge, but I am happy that it seems to be possible using only large radius points on the main line and medium radius points in the fiddle yards/sidings, and no curve radius less than 438mm. I think that I have left enough space for an 8-car HST without fouling points.

 

In any event, I should be grateful for people's views on the sanity of the track design. For reference, white denotes main running lines, green fiddle yard and red sidings/yards.

post-27057-0-22282300-1519350382_thumb.png

Edited by jamespetts
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

Hi,

 

Since the lifetime and ultimate position of this proposed layout is uncertain, and since you might be buying in baseboards, I suggest making this essentially portable - connected boards that could be broken down. That would allow you a lot of flexibility: Move it, store it, sell it, mount it above or below another layout, etc...

 

That would also facilitate my second suggestion which would be to make it a continuous circuit. Have one through fiddle yard behind the scenic through station with 180degree turns at each end (in simplistic terms). That would allow continuous running, which would suit non-stopping trains, and is a bit more relaxed and possibly more satisfying to operate than shuttling from one end to the other.

 

You could do that on boards of total size, say, 4000mm by 900mm maybe with some extra width at the ends to ease the curves.

 

Did Oxford (or your imaginary version of it) have sidings/yards in the 80s/90s?

Edited by Harlequin
Link to post
Share on other sites

Your earlier schemes probably matched your aspirations better than this one.  Once again there is an awful lot of complexity here and not much to look at. Again it will need a lot of operators to make it buzz if you have to manhandle locos to run them round.  I would use one of the earlier schemes but with far less platforms, 4 maybe and double track.  Even a simple 2 platform through station which I think Oxford was in the 1980s or Cheltemham is now can have trains stopping, running through non stop or terminating and later forming a return service after a rest in carriage sidings.

 

If you have a continuous run and decent controllers which you can set and the trains run at a reasonably constant speed up hill down dale then as soon as the continuous circuit is usable maintenance sessions and operating sessions can blur into one another with trains running as you work. I have been lengthening hidden sidings since November so don't have any illusions about having the layout built during a fortnights annual leave.

 

With experience of sheds.... If it is wood it will subside. If you build in wood mark the uprights so you can screw into them and make everything so the levels can be adjusted. A good solid tongue and groove floor pays dividends.  Your average builder thinks 1 in 100 is level.  Sheds easily last 40 years. My Garage is 1980 vintage and still going strong.   

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you for your feedback. Oxford definitely had carriage sidings, which were regularly used, in the 1980s and 1990s (indeed, it still has them, although I think that their layout has now been simplified as services are no longer locomotive hauled). I remember distinctly during that period seeing the bright central marker light of a class 50 in the sidings waiting for it to pull into the platform with the train to London, which would sometimes consist of old corridor mk. 1 carriages, which would always make me happy.

 

As to portability, that is an interesting idea. I had wondered about this. The design of the layout is such that it could in principle be divided into three sections (the divisions being just at the points of the beginnings of the diamond junctions on each side of the station).

 

I am not convinced about the idea of making it circular, however, as I am not a fan of layouts in which one sees a train passing and then, shortly afterwards, sees the same train passing in the same direction: I do not find that sort of thing satisfying. Many of the trains in any event travelling in the down direction will terminate in the station and reverse onto the up lines; the sorts of trains that do that should thus obviously not then emerge on the up line from the down main fiddle yard.

 

One thing that I had wondered about, though, to reduce the need for manually fiddling in the fiddle yard was to allow the layout to turn a corner at the left hand side (giving more room in general), and incorporate turnback/reversing loops in both fiddle yards, which would then allow trains to emerge from the direction to which they had gone. May I ask - what is the minimum recommended radius for a reversing loop for an 8-car HST in N gauge so that I can check whether this idea is viable?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmmm... scissors crossovers, diamonds, now proposed return loops (again). This is clearly a definition of the word "Simple" that I was previously unaware of. :scratchhead:

 

I can't really offer much helpful advice, as I don't think it'd make any difference anyway. It's all making for very interesting reading, though. :yes:

Link to post
Share on other sites

I too have toyed with the idea of the fiddlyards formed into an out and back format.

 

What you have to consider is how many lines will be in each fiddleyard and remember starting at radius 1 each line will be an increment in radius of 1 with your shorter stock in the lowest radii to keep overhang to a minimum.

 

The length of the siding will determine the radii also - so a full length HST would not be in a 1st or 2nd radii siding as will be longer than the circle the radius produces

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmmm... scissors crossovers, diamonds, now proposed return loops (again). This is clearly a definition of the word "Simple" that I was previously unaware of. :scratchhead:

 

I can't really offer much helpful advice, as I don't think it'd make any difference anyway. It's all making for very interesting reading, though. :yes:

I wouldn't have return loops, i would make the whole railway one circuit and not have the trains cross over so no polarity issues.  

 

Of course that would be difficult with a proposal for carriage sidings as well, although you could just isolate the pole reversal to a stretch of line to allow shunting in/out.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I wouldn't have return loops, i would make the whole railway one circuit and not have the trains cross over so no polarity issues.  

 

Of course that would be difficult with a proposal for carriage sidings as well, although you could just isolate the pole reversal to a stretch of line to allow shunting in/out.

I too would always do an oval if at all possible; my main O Scale layout has one. "Tail chasing" may not be prototypical, but there are times when you don't want 'serious' ops, just sit back & relax awhile. A train can loop the oval while you do other stuff on the layout, and it's always useful for running-in engines.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmmm... scissors crossovers, diamonds, now proposed return loops (again). This is clearly a definition of the word "Simple" that I was previously unaware of. :scratchhead:

 

I can't really offer much helpful advice, as I don't think it'd make any difference anyway. It's all making for very interesting reading, though. :yes:

 

This is really not very constructive. It is not much use blandly to state that something should be "simple" without giving any idea in practical terms of how to quantify the degree simplicity (implicitly) suggested. This is vastly simpler than the previous layout design posted on the other thread, the advice there being to try something much simpler, which this is. The diamond crossovers are necessary to allow for the four platforms from double track and the scissors crossovers, which, incidentally are sold in one piece units in N-gauge, are necessary to allow for access to all roads of the fiddle yard from both directions, without which the layout would be unworkable.

 

In relation to return loops, I understood that the issue with return loops is that they usually need tighter radii than a circuit layout. I did ask whether anyone has any idea what a minimum recommended radius for a return loop capable of dealing with an N gauge 8 car HST might be in order that I can calculate myself precisely whether one will fit in the space. Can anyone assist with this? (I am also aware of the need to deal with polarity issues, but I note that there are standard and relatively straightforward solutions for this).

 

As I have already written, I should not find a circuit layout to be satisfying enough to operate to be worth building as I do not enjoy watching the same train pass in the same direction many times over. I know that many others do enjoy this; but I do not, and there is no point in me building a layout designed to operate in a way that I do not find enjoyable.

Edited by jamespetts
Link to post
Share on other sites

Just because a layout might have continuous ovals doesn't mean your trains have to go around them/through the same scene more than once, nor did I state that!! It's a good way to have a scenic section one side, & large adequate fiddleyard the other. Thousands of Exhibition layouts can't be wrong!!

 

I should think that prototype through stations don't require that trains from each direction have access to all the platforms on approach; up trains use one side, & down trains the other. Check what the real thing does.

 

I agree that 'simple' is often relative. I think you see simple to mean less track overall; more experienced modellers might take it to mean less complicated trackwork, as nothing is more frustrating than trains derailing, & being able to lay complex junctions is a skill that takes time to learn, even using r-t-r products.

Edited by F-UnitMad
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

Three points about a circuit layout vs. fiddle-yard-to-fiddle-yard:

 

  1. You can operate the circuit as if it were yard-to-yard. You don't have to perform continuous running but it gives you the flexibility to do so if and when required. (e.g. running in). And it gives you the flexibility to imagine that a train which ran through the station earlier and stopped in the yard, took some other route around the imaginary rail network to later re-appear in the scenic area from the same direction as last time.
  2. If you set a train running continuously you can think of it in two ways:
    1. The train is travelling for a more realistic length of journey and on that journey the station represents other stations further along the line.
    2. The train repeatedly passing through the same station represents other traffic on the network.
  3. A circuit usually has a more compact form factor that uses space more efficiently and is easier to house, easier to display, easier to sell on if that time ever comes.

Sorry but I can't answer about N-gauge reversing loop radii - not my area of knowledge.

Edited by Harlequin
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you both for your replies. Looking at some other sources, 12" (~305mm) appears to be the minimum recommended curve radius for N-gauge (for operational rather than aesthetic reasons), although it appears that tighter radii (9") are possible, especially with non-steam locomotives.

 

In terms of simplicity, I am interested by the comment relating to less complex trackwork. May I ask what counts as complex track-work for these purposes and how one can sensibly calibrate the degree of complexity in any given arrangement of track if not by counting the number of elements?

 

In relation to an oval layout, I really do not think that that would work at all well for this concept, as many trains (e.g. the terminating locomotive hauled trains) have to terminate in the station and reverse, and thus would never emerge from the up line towards the station.

 

In any event, I now have the data to check whether a return loop is viable in the space, and, if it is, will re-design the layout with return loops at both ends to reduce the need manually to intervene in fiddle yard operations.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have now produced a revised design for this: see the attached. I found that it was not possible to have dual fiddle yards with reversing loops (I could fit in one if I turned the corner, but not both), but I have devised a method of using a single fiddle yard in a circular arrangement together with reversing loops to allow automatic/semi-automatic operation without manual intervention in the fiddle yards yet in which trains emerge from the same direction as that in which they went.

 

This also has the side effect of allowing a longer scenic section, permitting the locomotive yards to run parallel to track in the scenic area, allowing for more general scenery between the back of the station and the fiddle yard, and allowing the fast trains to build up speed between stopping in the fiddle yard and entering the scenic section.

 

This has increased the overall width from 600mm to 900mm (or 1,000mm opposite the station, the extra width being allowed to model the forecourt), but hopefully this should allow rear access. However, with this arrangement, I am able to confine this layout to a single wall, which should make installation easier.

 

Do people think that there ought to be a facing cross-over on the main line to allow easier access to the branch, or does what I have represent how this sort of arrangement would have been likely to have been in the 1980s, main line access being possible by crossing from the down main to platform 4, which can then access the branch? Also, do people think that it would be sensible to replace the two diamond crossings in the fiddle yards with single slips to allow for plain circular running even though that is not my preferred way of operating a layout?

post-27057-0-56125200-1519423777_thumb.png

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

It's definitely simpler, as others have said!

 

Because it's such an easy fix--you can definitely simplify the reversing loop situation (since it seems to vital) without losing any functionality. Just connect the two sides of the oval with a diagonal. The turnout on the scenic side can be off-scene.

 

I'm a bit concerned about the layout's operating potential, it's a lot of straight track and passing trains but that's just part of the territory of modelling HSTs in the 80s. If you could work in an industrial area of some sort and maybe reduce the number of through platforms from 4 to 3 you could see a lot of varied stock on the layout at any one time.

 

To return to something from the previous thread though--just because 9" is possible in N, that doesn't make it advisable. (That's equivalent to 18" in 00.) 15-18" is a better minimum radius in N for reliability. You can make the ends of the layout wider than the middle to accommodate this (dogbone layout), since you already have pretty good access to the ends of the oval.

 

Quentin

Edited by mightbe
Link to post
Share on other sites

Have I understood correctly that you mean something like this? If so, this seems to me more difficult and more prone to conflicting movements - but perhaps I have misunderstood...?

 

Incidentally, the curve radius is set to a minimum of 305mm (~12"), which I saw being consistently recommended as a minimum workable radius for N gauge in a number of places.

 

As for operating potential, we have locomotive hauled trains terminating in platforms 4/5 and stabling in the carriage sidings, branch movements and main line through trains. Do you think that it needs more than that?

post-27057-0-41665300-1519440112_thumb.png

Link to post
Share on other sites

Getting there,, I would have as many clockwise storage loops as anticlockwise, yours are all anti - clockwise. I don't really understand the return loop it could be simplified some more.  No real need for the branch to be modelled, Cheltenham and Oxford both had branch trains terminating but the junction was down the line a few yards (Cheltenham) or a few miles (Oxford)  Oxford and Cheltenham had only two through platforms though Oxford had two through roads.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The design before last had only clockwise storage loops because trains from all directions could access them using the reversing loops. This other arrangement seems harder to make sense of and does not seem any simpler - perhaps I am not understanding what is intended?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have no idea what you tried to do there in the middle of the layout, it's quite complicated and not what I was getting at. 

 

Use the ends of your oval as most of the return loops themselves. To piece it together, draw an oval. Now connect the top left to the bottom right and/or vice versa. There's your return loop(s).

 

Operationally, you have much untapped potential. I only see passenger moves planned, and even then the carriage sidings are just 'there' and won't contribute much to the overall operations since they are quite literally visible storage. My concern is that it's lots of fixed formations going to and fro (which is fine if the layout is just a terminus) without any provision for goods, industry, etc. It's about as bland as a layout of this scale and concept could get, since even the branch is operationally neutered by choosing to depict it literally. 

 

The facing turnouts everywhere also strike me as a bit odd. I'm just a bit confused by the whole thing.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

 

Hello James,

 

I would try to keep your minimum radius to 12". While most modern models can cope with 9" you will get much more reliable running with gentler radii.

 

Also, I would echo what others have said. My impression is that you are attempting to create a plan that allows every line to lead to every other line. This is not how the real railway works. Pointwork is expensive, and tends only to be put in where absolutely necessary. And it can be operationally more fun figuring out ways of working round track limitations.

 

Cheers

 

Ben A.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have indeed kept to a minimum radius of 305mm (~12") for this layout in order to ensure reliable running. Joseph - I should be very grateful to see the sketch: that would be most helpful.

 

As to the track layout in the scenic section, I have been thinking of a way of doing away with the diamond crossings that had fallen out of favour by the 1980s, and wonder whether a slightly different (and possibly more realistic) platform arrangement would be to have a pair of loops off the mainline that do not cross the running line in the opposite direction. This would also reduce conflicting movements. I will have a go at posting a design for that in due course. Incidentally, I am aware that the real Oxford station has just two main line platforms; but this station (which you may notice from the filename of the plans is provisionally entitled, "Oxcott") is intended to be a hybrid between Oxford and Didcot, and, although more closely resembling Oxford in design, is nonetheless intended to have the main line HST operations of a location on the London to Bristol route. Indeed, part of the idea for interesting operations would include stopping freight trains in the slow platforms to allow for expresses to pass.

 

On the subject of operations, I should prefer not to have freight terminal operations, as that is not what interests me so much; I am rather more interested in passenger train movements (although I plan on having through freight trains). I had wondered at one stage whether an engineering siding (as in the real Oxford) might be a thing to have, although I did not have space for that in the end.

 

Thank you again in any event for all of your feedback - it is much appreciated.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

I agree that 'simple' is often relative. I think you see simple to mean less track overall; more experienced modellers might take it to mean less complicated trackwork, as nothing is more frustrating than trains derailing, & being able to lay complex junctions is a skill that takes time to learn, even using r-t-r products.

Nothing overly complicated in that plan... what are you seeing? Scissor crossings, reverse loops, they’re not inherently complex. I disagree that there’s huge amounts of skill involved in laying ‘complex junctions’ (ie a handful of RTR products laid adjacent to each other). If you lay it and it doesn’t work you try again. How will building a BLT develop any skills which you can’t learn on a bigger layout? How does that help with installing a reverse loop module? Itself maybe 5 minutes of work.

 

Personally I’d make it a roundy-roundy in some capacity, I agree, but I still don’t see an issue with the OP starting with a larger layout, just because it’s not the norm.

Edited by njee20
Link to post
Share on other sites

I have revised the design a little further in the platform area, eliminating the diamond crossings (which I am aware were avoided wherever possible by the 1980s), and making the platform design closer to other stations of a similar size on the Western region. I have also eliminated all but four sets of facing points on the mainline (two in each direction: one for the station in each direction, and one for the locomotive sidings, the other for the branch).

 

I did have another go at the reverse loop idea without crossing the main width of the baseboard, but this did not seem to be productive as it required too much width to get a 305mm (~12") curve in both directions of the necessary "S" bend (and would still require diamond crossings in any event).

 

Thank you again all for your feedback: it is much appreciated in helping to design this.

post-27057-0-41885300-1519472785_thumb.png

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Nothing overly complicated in that plan... what are you seeing? Scissor crossings, reverse loops, they’re not inherently complex. I disagree that there’s huge amounts of skill involved in laying ‘complex junctions’ (ie a handful of RTR products laid adjacent to each other). If you lay it and it doesn’t work you try again. How will building a BLT develop any skills which you can’t learn on a bigger layout? How does that help with installing a reverse loop module? Itself maybe 5 minutes of work.

 

Personally I’d make it a roundy-roundy in some capacity, I agree, but I still don’t see an issue with the OP starting with a larger layout, just because it’s not the norm.

Re bold: If it's "not inherently complex" then it should work first time and not need 'trying again', should it not? 

 

And I don't think I've advocated a 'small' layout or a BLT on either thread, have I? Just 'simpler' trackwork (i.e. less diamonds, slips and crossovers) to start off with, whatever the size of the layout. Looks like James has done some of this, on his latest plan here. :good:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...