Blue13 Posted March 17, 2018 Share Posted March 17, 2018 Firstly apologies if I'm doing wrong having a couple of other open topics regarding the signalling and point operation of my layout but thought my latest question would be better answered in here. It came apparent that I messed up somewhat with my track plan which is now laid and sprayed, so not really wanting to rip up and start again I wondered if anyone could advise me if my following thoughts would work better. After the bridge (pic.1) is the fiddle yard and is imagined it's a double track mainline but it has been pointed out in one of the other threads that there should be a catch point and the station throat is very restrictive. Would it work better if after the bridge it was imagined it was a single line branch line (pic 2). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold TheSignalEngineer Posted March 17, 2018 RMweb Gold Share Posted March 17, 2018 A possible scenario is that the originally double track branch was rationalised to single track during modernisation c1980s. Leave the point in the stabling siding on the station side of the bridge as a trap and take up the track from it going under the bridge. Add a bit of gunge/ballast in the holes where the sleepers were. 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blue13 Posted March 17, 2018 Author Share Posted March 17, 2018 A possible scenario is that the originally double track branch was rationalised to single track during modernisation c1980s. Leave the point in the stabling siding on the station side of the bridge as a trap and take up the track from it going under the bridge. Add a bit of gunge/ballast in the holes where the sleepers were. Thanks for taking the time to reply much appreciated. Only thing is that point leads to another under the bridge to form a two road fiddle yard. I've not made this easy have I lol. This is the track layout of the fiddle yard under the bridge. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Kazmierczak Posted March 17, 2018 Share Posted March 17, 2018 Following-on from The SE's idea above, what about this? The former double-track mainline would've gone through one arch of the overbridge, with a narrower arch accommodating the headshunt. 3 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blue13 Posted March 17, 2018 Author Share Posted March 17, 2018 Hi Peter thanks for the idea. This is how it is at the moment; 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blue13 Posted March 18, 2018 Author Share Posted March 18, 2018 A possible scenario is that the originally double track branch was rationalised to single track during modernisation c1980s. Leave the point in the stabling siding on the station side of the bridge as a trap and take up the track from it going under the bridge. Add a bit of gunge/ballast in the holes where the sleepers were. SE could I leave a headshunt in which could be used as plan below; Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Flying Pig Posted March 18, 2018 RMweb Premium Share Posted March 18, 2018 The photo is very revealing. Your diagram shows a rather odd alignment of the platform roads and implies the use of the dreaded SL-99 symmetric three-throw abomination. The reality, with a tandem 3-way and the straight platform road aligned with the down main, looks much better (I really like your retaining wall and its pipework). A possible story that occurs to me is of a rationalised four-platform terminus as below: I don't know whether you have room to model the foundations of the demolished platform and trackbeds of the lifted roads, but it might help to set the scene. The amount of stabling is almost certainly excessive for the remaining passenger services, but would fit a location in the London suburbs where stock is stabled between the peaks, so I've drawn the main as double track with a separate connection for ECS departing the stabling sidings. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blue13 Posted March 18, 2018 Author Share Posted March 18, 2018 (edited) The photo is very revealing. Your diagram shows a rather odd alignment of the platform roads and implies the use of the dreaded SL-99 symmetric three-throw abomination. The reality, with a tandem 3-way and the straight platform road aligned with the down main, looks much better (I really like your retaining wall and its pipework). A possible story that occurs to me is of a rationalised four-platform terminus as below: Studio_20180318_102032.jpg I don't know whether you have room to model the foundations of the demolished platform and trackbeds of the lifted roads, but it might help to set the scene. The amount of stabling is almost certainly excessive for the remaining passenger services, but would fit a location in the London suburbs where stock is stabled between the peaks, so I've drawn the main as double track with a separate connection for ECS departing the stabling sidings. Thanks for that Flying Pig. Have you put a catch point under the bridge? Yes I've used the SL-99 symmetric (I've used two I'm afraid). Cheers Ian. Edited March 18, 2018 by Blue13 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blue13 Posted March 18, 2018 Author Share Posted March 18, 2018 (edited) Excuse the mess but this is what I have. Edited March 18, 2018 by Blue13 3 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Flying Pig Posted March 18, 2018 RMweb Premium Share Posted March 18, 2018 Thanks for that Flying Pig. Have you put a catch point under the bridge? Yes I've used the SL-99 symmetric (I've used two I'm afraid). Cheers Ian. I've drawn a trap point beyond the bridge, but it should be offscene so it won't need to be modelled. The only remaining issue I can see is that trains from the two front fiddle sidings have to arrive in the stabling sidings over this line as there's no modelled crossover for them to reach the down main. This does imply access further back along the imagined line - either another facing crossover or a single line after all. Both the 3-ways in your photos seem to be of the tandem type. It's the symmetric one that's an unlikely element in most trackplans. BTW, if you hadn't already built the backscene behind the stabling sidings, I'd suggest a carriage shed over the rear couple of sidings as a view blocker instead, which would make the fiddle yard somewhat easier to reach. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
'CHARD Posted March 18, 2018 Share Posted March 18, 2018 I really like the look of this layout. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blue13 Posted March 18, 2018 Author Share Posted March 18, 2018 I've drawn a trap point beyond the bridge, but it should be offscene so it won't need to be modelled. The only remaining issue I can see is that trains from the two front fiddle sidings have to arrive in the stabling sidings over this line as there's no modelled crossover for them to reach the down main. This does imply access further back along the imagined line - either another facing crossover or a single line after all. Both the 3-ways in your photos seem to be of the tandem type. It's the symmetric one that's an unlikely element in most trackplans. BTW, if you hadn't already built the backscene behind the stabling sidings, I'd suggest a carriage shed over the rear couple of sidings as a view blocker instead, which would make the fiddle yard somewhat easier to reach. Thanks again Flying Pig. My mistake sorry I've used Peco SL-E99 3 ways. You've all given me plenty to think about and I might just be swaying towards single line operation.......maybe keep the point out of the yard as the headshunt? The stabling points will be used by locomotives and DEMU's (I may add third rail to a few of the main stabling points to allow EMU's). Plenty of modellers license will allow the odd freight train to come into the station area and be released by a shunter. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now