Jump to content
 

Main line through station in N


jamespetts
 Share

Recommended Posts

I have to say, I am still really very unclear what people mean when they refer to "simple" trackwork - can anyone elaborate to the extent that one can use the definition reliably to determine whether any given layout has "simple" or "complex" trackwork (by this specific definition) on the basis of the information contained in the given definition alone, not relying on any assumptions that may not be common to all persons with a working knowledge of railways generally?

 

Also, may I ask what a BLT layout is? I must confess, I thought that that particular initialism refers to a type of sandwich.

 

Incidentally, as to operating potential, I had imagined the following diagrams:

 

(1) London to Bristol - HST - Intercity - every other train in each direction stops;

(2) London to Cardiff - HST - Intercity - every other train in each direction stops;

(3) London to Swansea - HST - Intercity - no train stops;

(4) Poole to Glasgow - locomotive hauled - Intercity - all trains stop;

(5) Southampton to York - locomotive hauled - Intercity - all trains stop;

(6) London to Worcester (fast) - locomotive hauled - Regional Railways - all trains stop;

(7) Oxcott to Worcester (slow) - DMU - Regional Railways - trains terminate from the down direction;

(8) Reading to Worcester (slow) - DMU - Regional Railways - all trains stop;

(9) Oxcott to Banbury - DMU - Regional Railways - trains terminate from the branch;

(10) Reading to Oxcott (slow) - DMU - NSE - trains terminate from the up direction;

(11) London to Oxcott (semi-fast) - DMU - NSE - trains terminate from the up direction;

(12) London to Oxcott (fast) - locomotive hauled - NSE - trains terminate from the up direction;

(13) London to Bristol (mail) - locomotive hauled - RES - every third train stops;

(14) MGR - locomotive hauled - RF coal - trains may stop to let express trains past if necessary;

(15) tankers - locomotive hauled - RF liquids - trains may stop to let express trains past if necessary;

(16) steel flats - locomotive hauled - RF metals - trains may stop to let express trains past if necessary; and

(17) civil engineer's train - locomotive hauled - CE dept. - runs ad hoc.

 

 I hope that that should provide sufficient operational interest.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

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.

 

A pity to waste length by having the reverse loops on the outside. They could be on the inside.

 

You should not need very many lines in the fiddleyard as each will be able to hold several trains.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You can do anything wrong the first time,.... Simple or not.

You certainly can, in almost any aspect of life. The trouble with that is that in most cases doing things wrong will be costly, be an insurance liability, or worse.

Far better to try and do things right the first time, and simple things will be easier to get right straight away than complicated things.  Doing things wrong at first is not the same as doing something that can be improved upon. 

 

James, with regard to track I use the term 'complex' in terms of pointwork, diamonds, slips, scissors and so on. Those are the things that can cause grief on a layout, for several reasons. The more there are, the more potential for trouble there can be. However much plain track there might be, that is not 'complex', unless unrealistic gradients are involved. Even r-t-r points are not always totally 'foolproof' or reliable straight out of the box, and we haven't even got to the question of live or dead frogs for your plans, yet.

 

BLT stands for "Branch Line Terminus". ;)

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

Thank you both for your thoughts. I have tried to put the reversing loop inside the main loop, but, with a minimum of 305mm (~12") radius curves, this takes more space than the outside loop: see the attached plan (I did not complete the right hand side loops on account of the lack of benefit of the left hand loops). Am I getting something wrong here?

 

In terms of complex track, do I understand that you mean any piece of intersecting trackwork which has more than three entrances (including three-way points, diamond crossings and single and double slips)? If so, can you elaborate on the nature and degree of problems that these tend to cause and the circumstances in which they cause such trouble, as it would help me very much to understand this with more precision.

 

And thank you for clarifying the sandwich/model railway confusion: that is most helpful.

post-27057-0-01286700-1519486819_thumb.png

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

You certainly can, in almost any aspect of life. The trouble with that is that in most cases doing things wrong will be costly, be an insurance liability, or worse.

 

Bit melodramatic in the context of building a model Railway! You make mistakes, you learn from them. Simple.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Bit melodramatic in the context of building a model Railway! You make mistakes, you learn from them. Simple.

Simple, & still expensive.

You've not followed certain threads about using lofts for a layout, then. Nothing melodramatic about making mistakes there, & one reason why James here is going for a shed.

Learn from other's experience & avoid mistakes is a better policy. That's not to say someone won't ever make mistakes, but of course some always want to learn the hard way.

 

James; all points, diamonds, slips etc need great care in laying & wiring. The potential problems - which is not saying they definitely will, but could happen - are derailments, stalling, & short circuits, plus the difficulties point motors can cause if or when they fail. This isn't to put you off; it's to make you aware of potential problems, & the reason it is difficult to quantify the time it takes to lay track. The best guideline is that it cannot be rushed.

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

I note that you refer to the issues relating to slips and diamonds to be common to all non-plain track - is that correct? If so, was I incorrect in my understanding that "complex" trackwork refers to certain types of non-plain track? Nearly all layouts will have some points somewhere - so I am now very unclear indeed on what it means for a layout to have "complex" trackwork. Can you elaborate? Is it the absolute number of points? The density? The type?

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

The inference is that yes, anything but plain track is likely to cause problems. Whilst I conceptually agree, insofar as shorts and derailments will basically never occur on plain track, as long as you test while you go, rather than spending 5 years laying track only to find there’s a short somewhere, it’s a total non-issue. There’s a way to wire up points, you get it right or you don’t. If you don’t, you look at why and you do it again. The size of the layout and ‘complexity’ Is moot. A crossover, or ladder of crossovers is no more difficult to lay or install than a single point.

 

There’s no great skill to laying track that works, and again, if you’re unhappy then just re-lay it. I relaid one set of curves as I’d left too much space between them, it looked daft. I relaid another curve as it was a bit too tight. I relaid a fiddle yard road because the entrance was a bit abrupt. Nothing about these was caused by the size of my layout, nor were they ‘issues’ I’d have avoided by building a smaller layout first. None were expensive to resolve, didn’t havr liability insurance implications ‘or worse’, they were just part of the learning experience.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The last plan has a problem common to my unfinished loft layout in that trains will do a awful lot of running in the hidden area  especially in your case clockwise ones.  In mine short clockwise trains and long anti clockwise trains have to do a lot of running in the hidden area and you really do get fed up with the amount of time trains take to get round...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Why have you done the reversing loop like that? That's so much unnecessary track. I shall edit this post shortly with a diagram of what I mean, which is really far less convoluted.

 

Quentin

 

EDIT:

 

post-20159-0-74875300-1519505772_thumb.png

 

As you can see, I've divided the fiddle yard into clockwise and counterclockwise (red and blue, respectively) for simultaneous departures and arrivals, with a bidrectional road in the middle. I've also designated the running lines (saturated colors). Those are diamonds at the bottom left and right; there is one double slip in the mid right, to direct the flow from the reversing loop into the correct side of the yard.

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

Why have you done the reversing loop like that? That's so much unnecessary track. I shall edit this post shortly with a diagram of what I mean, which is really far less convoluted.

 

Quentin

 

That would be very helpful - thank you. I did try to get the reversing loops in the centre, but could not find a better way of doing it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The inference is that yes, anything but plain track is likely to cause problems.

I said there is potential for problems, not that problems definitely will happen :banghead: oh and the reason why a section of track or pointwork doesn't work might not be immediately obvious. Threads on RMweb testify to that.

 

I doubt if anyone can say with real accuracy how long it took them to lay their track on a large layout. Likewise with other matters that James wants quantifying with precise figures, such as the definition of 'complex'; such things simply cannot be quantified in that way.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Complexity can be a tally of tandems, slips, and scissors if you like, but that's reductive way to look at it.

 

A better metric is to judge the relative utility of such formations in context. "Is it worth the expense?" is the question real railways ask constantly. In Victorian and Edwardian times, companies were a little more free with their money and devised some seriously complicated trackwork. As the 20th century progressed, the view shifted to achieving maximum function with minimum outlay.

 

Track is rarely laid willy-nilly. Essentially, anything more than a regular turnout must be a justified expense.

 

So if I see a lot of slips, tandems or even turnouts (depending)--I consider what their being used for, whether the space taken up is being used efficiently, and what consequences there might be if various parts of the formation were simplified. (By the 1980s, rationalization efforts took this to its logical extreme in Britain.) If I judge that there's too much waste and not enough utility I rethink the formation. 

 

Even fiddle yards should be treated with a certain stinginess. I justified the cost of 3 turnouts (plus the difference in cost between a 4th and a double slip) on the basis that I could make the middle road bidirectional, letting a block of vehicles arrive from one direction and return in the other. I didn't have to though, as the bidirectional road might be unnecessary depending on need. 

 

Always look to see what can be trimmed back. The real railway will eliminate a nifty bit of track from a design if it'll only make a marginal impact on operations. There isn't money for luxury.

 

Quentin

Edited by mightbe
Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you for that suggestion: that is helpful. I have had a go at this, but this does not seem to save a significant amount of space: I have not completed the track layout yet, but there is enough to show the amount of space used where it is implemented (at the right hand side - I have not completed the left hand side).

 

Do you still think this arrangement advantageous even in spite of it not saving space?

post-27057-0-27515500-1519516183_thumb.png

Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course it's advantageous; it's functional, it does what you want, and does so with a minimum of that ill-defined complexity. It won't magically create space that wasn't there before. Reversing loops take up an inordinate amount of space; this really is the minimum.

 

Do note what I did with the fiddle yard was actually very different and somewhat elegantly integrated into the reversing loops. At the moment all your storage is on the counterclockwise side. For the arrangement to work optimally you really must separate the fiddle yard in two, as shown.

 

(As a side note, you've created a nasty reverse curve in the reversing loop; it should be slackened somewhat, as I have also shown)

 

Quentin

 

EDIT:

 

post-20159-0-25767900-1519520099_thumb.png

 

I have revised the diagram to formally separate the two fiddle yards. Just for fun, I added up the lengths of storage space. Even though it has one less track, the red side came out on top (by a small margin).

Edited by mightbe
Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you for that - in relation to a minimum of complexity, I notice that this arrangement uses the same number of diamond crossings as the original, but an extra pair of double slips. On the face of it, it would appear to be more complex; but am I missing something?

 

I did notice the difference apropos the fiddle yards; my original plan was for the fiddle yard storage to occur after using the reversing loop in the clockwise direction and before using the reversing loop in the anti-clockwise direction, meaning that only anti-clockwise fiddle yards would be needed, using fewer turnouts and a simpler arrangement. Is there an operational issue with this that I have not spotted, however?

Edited by jamespetts
Link to post
Share on other sites

I actually just changed it to remove the double slip (there was only one), see the diagram in the post above you.

 

As for more complexity, it's justified complexity. There is a sensible reason for it to be laid out as shown, in other words, as your previous plans for the fiddle yard seemed to sprawl and wind unnecessarily. I substantially reduce the amount of "dead" or minimally-used track.

 

As for your original intentions, there are some major drawbacks. You're enormously limited in what can go in and out at the same time. 1 arrival and 1 departure. My plan allows twice that, making it twice as flexible, in addition to permitting fiddle yard access for "looping" and reversing trains equally, which is good if you just need to shuffle stock around.

 

EDIT:

 

My apologies for momentarily taking it down, I thought I'd made a grave error but I guess not! The only downside is that it's no longer possible to effectively change which yard the train was in without going through a reverse loop (as would happen if adding a loco to the rear of a train in the bidirectional line)

Edited by mightbe
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

Mightbe's design is simple and sensible but there are also two small issues with it, which I'm sure can be sorted out:

  • The blue counterclockwise running line traverses a lot of points in the fiddle yard, so there's an increased chance of derailments and stalling problems. The red running line shows the ideal way to take multiple storage sidings off the running line.
  • It's not possible to enter or leave the red storage sidings without running through the station.
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

There are various possible solutions to the fiddleyard/reverse loop conundrum.

 

Apart from space constraints, we now have a clearer idea of the trains that James wants to replicate and the era. So that will define what is needed in the fiddleyard and the "tricks" needed to represent those trains running in each direction.

 

Equally, we now have a location for the layout which should really have four tracks through the station. Now that does suggest an easy option for track design although  one that would make a fully timetabled option difficult. I'm not sure that James would be that bothered about a timetable.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've had a rush tinker with this, so the below plan isn't complete, or to scale, but should give some ideas to play with.

 

post-9147-0-49580000-1519553831_thumb.jpg

 

I've gone back to your earlier format of platforms 4 and 5 being for the terminating and direction change loco hauled services. These have direct access to the carriage sidings so keep the mainlines clear for the through running HSTs. on the left end, there's 2 potential versions of the station throat to access platforms 4 and 5, the simplified option is the most realistically likely (IMO), but if you'd like simultaneous arrivals/departures then i've drawn the longer version below.

 

For the branch line side, something about a bay platform facing onto the main up didn't sit quite right with me, so i've extended the branch to lead straight into the bay. Scenically around that part it would be easy to represent that there used to be more sidings for the formally independent branch line. This also stops the branch shuttle blocking HSTs on the up main during daily operations. I have kept a trailing connection onto the up main for the branch so that at the last service of the day can terminate in platform 4 or 5 rather than 1, and slip back into the carriage sidings for refueling. The approach pointwork is a little more complex and i've slipped a diamond crossing in there for you ;) but it keeps the majority of the connections to the main lines as trailing.

 

I've also drawn the carriage siding point work as a 'fan' rather than a 'ladder' to save you some length. The same might be useful in your fiddle yard.

 

I've tried (not very succesfully) to put the diamond crossings for the return loops in the fiddle yard and save you length along the front. A bit more playing with that is needed but i don't have time now.

 

HTH!

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you all very much for your assistance: that is most useful. I can see that the revised design fiddle yards/reversing loop is superior to that which I had originally set out.

 

I attach a revised plan incorporating the suggested features from both Mightbe and Satan's Goldfish, which allow longer carriage sidings, a straighter down headshunt in the carriage sidings, and the elimination of the bulging baseboard in the centre, allowing the maximum width of the layout to be restricted to 900mm, providing easier access to the rear sections. In this layout, even platform 5 should be (just about) long enough to accept an 8 carriage HST, and platforms 2/3 long enough to take one with room to spare.

 

I have coloured the fiddle yard storage sections differently for the clockwise and anti-clockwise storage to make the diagram clearer. There are now four storage roads and one through road on each side of the fiddle yards, each storage road being long enough to accommodate more than one train.

 

I imagine that a sensible way of hiding the reversing loops would be to use a curved back scene board (preferably a removable one, perhaps with pegs slotting into holes in the baseboard, to allow easy access to the fiddle yard, as this layout is planned to be situated fairly high: about 1,500mm above the floor.

 

Thank you all very much for your help. Any feedback on this revised plan would be much appreciated.

post-27057-0-03404600-1519560883_thumb.png

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

Why have you done the reversing loop like that? That's so much unnecessary track. I shall edit this post shortly with a diagram of what I mean, which is really far less convoluted.

 

Quentin

 

EDIT:

 

attachicon.gifDiagram, reversing loops.png

 

As you can see, I've divided the fiddle yard into clockwise and counterclockwise (red and blue, respectively) for simultaneous departures and arrivals, with a bidrectional road in the middle. I've also designated the running lines (saturated colors). Those are diamonds at the bottom left and right; there is one double slip in the mid right, to direct the flow from the reversing loop into the correct side of the yard.

Given the length that James has to play with, it can be done even more simply than that, avoiding the diamonds.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

Thank you all very much for your assistance: that is most useful. I can see that the revised design fiddle yards/reversing loop is superior to that which I had originally set out.

 

I attach a revised plan incorporating the suggested features from both Mightbe and Satan's Goldfish, which allow longer carriage sidings, a straighter down headshunt in the carriage sidings, and the elimination of the bulging baseboard in the centre, allowing the maximum width of the layout to be restricted to 900mm, providing easier access to the rear sections. In this layout, even platform 5 should be (just about) long enough to accept an 8 carriage HST, and platforms 2/3 long enough to take one with room to spare.

 

I have coloured the fiddle yard storage sections differently for the clockwise and anti-clockwise storage to make the diagram clearer. There are now four storage roads and one through road on each side of the fiddle yards, each storage road being long enough to accommodate more than one train.

 

I imagine that a sensible way of hiding the reversing loops would be to use a curved back scene board (preferably a removable one, perhaps with pegs slotting into holes in the baseboard, to allow easy access to the fiddle yard, as this layout is planned to be situated fairly high: about 1,500mm above the floor.

 

Thank you all very much for your help. Any feedback on this revised plan would be much appreciated.

 

You are certainly getting closer. You should be able to do it all with a baseboard no more than 750mm deep and narrower than that at the centre of the layout where the platforms are.

 

Are you looking for proper fully timetabled action or just to be able to run the trains you mentioned in the earlier post? That will impact on the design. For instance, you could represent all three HST services with just one HST.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that a fully timetabled service would certainly be something that I should want to try, especially for computer controlled operation.

 

As to the width, a dogbone shaped layout would create more curvature on the main line and would also leave less room for scenery behind the station building, would it not?

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...