Jump to content
 

Alternative main line terminus in OO


jamespetts
 Share

Recommended Posts

In order to fill the shed of 7.5m x 2.7m internal dimensions that I am to be having built in my garden, I have produced a possible alternative layout plan to that discussed extensively elsewhere.

 

This is the plan:

 

Bournehampton%202.png

 

It is intended to represent a terminus station on the South coast of England in the mid 1930s, although it could in principle represent other times and/or places (as discussed in more detail below). Particular features of note:

 

  1. the station is served by two separate double track main lines;
  2. the longest platforms, the fiddle yards and the carriage sidings can accommodate 12 carriage trains;
  3. the minimum curve radius in the visible section is 813mm (32");
  4. the minimum curve radius in the fiddle yards is 572mm (4th radius);
  5. the fiddle yards are level separated (on which more below);
  6. no gradient is greater than 1.8%;
  7. it can be built using (in the scenic sections) only those items of Peco Bullhead track currently available (being plain track and large radius left and right hand turnouts); and
  8. there should be space underneath the layout for one or possibly two further layouts (one London Underground layout loosely based on Aldgate, and an N gauge layout previously discussed elsewhere).

Note also:

 

  1. I plan to automate or at least semi-automate operations using computer control and DCC;
  2. my particular interest is in operations, and especially terminus passenger operations, although this layout incorporates some goods features; and
  3. the gap at the bottom right hand corner is intended to be used for my workbench in the shed (the space for which is greater in this design than the design discussed on the other thread).

 

As to the level separation of the fiddle yards, those described as the "Brighton line" yards are 35mm lower than the station, and those described as the "London line" yards are 35mm higher than the station. The tracks are not stacked on top of one another except for in the reversing loops and at two separate crossing points. The rear part of the fiddle yard being higher should make it easier to access this part. The grade separated nature of the fiddle yard allows for the two separate main lines to have their own fiddle yard and reversing loop without any conflicting movements between them, and allowing both to have a 572mm radius reversing loop rather than requiring one to be of only 505mm radius. Because the grade separation is obtained by raising one side and lowering another, the gradients are kept gentle.

 

To get a better idea of how the grade separated fiddle yards work, see this 3d render of the track plan:

 

Bournehampton-1-3d-fiddle-yards.jpg

 

Note that the tunnels and terrain are automatically generated by SCARM and are not intended to be present in this form in the final layout.

 

I chose this setting for the layout in order to enable me to have a layout requiring nothing that is not available in ready to run form: a London terminus on the GWR would require non-corridor suburban carriages which, aside from "B-set" brake composites, are not available new or secondhand in ready to run form. I have had some initial success in 3d printing such a carriage, but there are some errors in that design which would need rectifying and it would also need painting. I also have some concerns in respect of the other design regarding whether there would be too many conflicting movements to make full use of the platforms (as the carriage sidings are connected by a single track line), and I had received conflicting advice about the workability of the helix necessary to connect the lower level.

 

I am also wondering whether this layout could be readily convertible to a different location/era simply by changing the stock and certain specific items. I should be very interested in whether anyone has any views on doing this for a layout and how practical that it is. The other possible locations that I had in mind were south Wales and east Anglia. (Earlier periods would require kit built stock - I will have to see whether I can build from kits to a good enough standard before attempting these).

 

Has anyone any experience of doing this and thoughts on what would need to be replaced other than locomotives and rolling stock? So far, I have thought of:

(1) signals;
(2) signalboxes; and
(3) station name boards (each location having a different name and style of station sign).

The signalboxes would be the easiest to replace, as they would just rest loosely on the layout at the relevant points.

The station name boards might be slightly trickier, but if they were not glued into the platform, but rather weighted in place by having thin brass or steel rods protruding from the bottom of the visible part of the sign into pre-drilled holes in the platforms, then these could be replaced without too much difficulty.

The greatest difficulty would of course be the signals, as these would have to be wired in and operating. This layout should be able to manage without any gantries, but individual signals would have to be removable/replaceable as a unit somehow, with the wires easily unplugging.

Has anyone here any experience of making easily removable/swappable signals? I should be grateful for any thoughts on this, as well as on the layout plan as a whole.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

Station Buildings also would have a very regional/company design.

If you have non-railway buildings (and there is not so much room for that) then these also show many major regional differences.  A red stone Glasgow tenement building would look as out of place in an East Anglian environment as a thatched cottage would in in Glasgow.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Station Buildings also would have a very regional/company design.

If you have non-railway buildings (and there is not so much room for that) then these also show many major regional differences.  A red stone Glasgow tenement building would look as out of place in an East Anglian environment as a thatched cottage would in in Glasgow.

 

Good point, yes: select buildings would probably have to be switched out, too. I suppose when I come to research what sort of buildings to put in in the first place, I will find out which are regionally specific when I see the range available.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello James,

 

I see you have your key operational features such as the station and engine shed but have you thought about any scenic features? With the track so close to the backscene near the station you may find it difficult to create a convincing backscene as the illusion of depth usually works better when there is some space between the two. Also even plain scenery can add a lot to a layout allowing it 'to breathe' and not looked so cramped as in my personal opinion your station looks rather more like a scenic fiddleyard than a realistic model. As you may have heard before having the station simpler and at an angle to the wall of your shed would help a lot with this but of course you will lose some operation. Of course if you are after something focused on having the most complex signalling possible then I am sure your plan fits the bill but if you are after advice on constructing a realistic model of a railway then perhaps think about some of the above. 

 

I have also found that, with some thought, a simpler plan can actually be more complex as you restrict the operations you can do which I have found more enjoyable in the past,

 

Gary

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you for your thoughts. My priority is the operational aspect of things, and, whilst I want what there is to look realistic, I do not think that I want to sacrifice operational depth just to have more space for scenery. However, if there is some way of getting a little more scenery in without sacrificing operational depth in any way, then that would be worthwhile. I had the idea that the lines leading out of the station could be in a cutting and on an embankment respectively (to account for their differing heights), which might give some extra depth of scenery, although, to make the track accessible, I plan only to model the far side of the cutting.

 

As to having the station at an angle, I struggle to see how this can be done without either making the space between the reversing loop and the station too tight, blocking the door to the shed (which is in the centre at the right), or losing a huge amount of width from the station and thus not making full use of the space that will be available to me.

 

Can you think of any specific ways of amending this layout to allow more space for scenery without compromising the operational capacity? (As to complexity by restricting the operational capacity - this layout already has some platforms/goods sidings inaccessible from one or the other of the two main lines; I am not sure how much more can be restricted without compromising the sort of timetables that can be run or just making the layout functionally much smaller and thus less interesting to me).

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you for your thoughts. My priority is the operational aspect of things, and, whilst I want what there is to look realistic, I do not think that I want to sacrifice operational depth just to have more space for scenery. However, if there is some way of getting a little more scenery in without sacrificing operational depth in any way, then that would be worthwhile. I had the idea that the lines leading out of the station could be in a cutting and on an embankment respectively (to account for their differing heights), which might give some extra depth of scenery, although, to make the track accessible, I plan only to model the far side of the cutting.

 

As to having the station at an angle, I struggle to see how this can be done without either making the space between the reversing loop and the station too tight, blocking the door to the shed (which is in the centre at the right), or losing a huge amount of width from the station and thus not making full use of the space that will be available to me.

 

Can you think of any specific ways of amending this layout to allow more space for scenery without compromising the operational capacity? (As to complexity by restricting the operational capacity - this layout already has some platforms/goods sidings inaccessible from one or the other of the two main lines; I am not sure how much more can be restricted without compromising the sort of timetables that can be run or just making the layout functionally much smaller and thus less interesting to me).

 

Hello James,

 

As you are aware by having an angle to your station you will lose some width from the station which, as you stated later, is something you would not like to do as naturally having them parallel allows you to 'fit more in'. I think the problem is how people interpret 'making full use of the space', for me this is allowing for things such as sweeping curves and town scenes for example where for you it is an opportunity for track. Of course this is not a bad thing just different opinions on what to do with available space which I believe others on the this forum with views more similar to your own will be more useful in helping you,

 

Good luck with the project,

 

Gary

Edited by Modelling Martin
Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, indeed - we all have different priorities and preferences. Having lots of space for scenery can look lovely, and ideally, it would be splendid to have that and a lot of operational detail, but one has to compromise on one or the other, and my own preference is to compromise on scenery space rather than operational detail.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi James, definitely an improvement on your previous designs.

 

Just a minor point where the fiddle yards crossover.  I think the London one crosses over the Brighton one at the right hand end.  The drawing shows them going underneath which confused me when looking at the gradients involved.

 

post-6950-0-14700800-1521791970.png

Edited by gordon s
Link to post
Share on other sites

Just a thought, is the plan based on anywhere prototypical?

 

I see you're interested in realistic operation, mostly passenger. Ha e a look at a place of similar size I keep visiting and would love to model; Norwich http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/66758-1980s-norwich-thorpe-plans/page-1

 

While the location and stock used isn't your preferred, it is a 'real' layout with 2x double tracks arriving, mostly passenger with sidings alongside, in a cramped area (just looking at the station and low-level siding, ignore riverside yard and it's access). There's also the engine shed along side the throat pointwork.

 

Less platforms than you'd like, but still allows for realistic operations (doesn't get more real than a proper location that (off the top of my head) feeds at least 6 locations many times a day). If I were to take apart and re-draw your plan at the start of this thread it would probably end up looking like the current Norwich layout but with the old engine shed added anyway.

 

HTH

Link to post
Share on other sites

I like the plan, and was thinking as I read through that the layout would look great if the new Peco BH track was used, and I see that you said so.

 

It is often seen as a virtue that, without any stock present, you can identify the operating company from the distinctive infrastructure, but there is a lot to be said for flexibility.  Presumably you only want to build one such large layout, and, quite reasonably, you want to run as much as possible on it.

 

If you at least stick to one period -1930s is a great period as it is fairly practical for RTR, but there's still some colour and romance -  you can plan to be generic in terms of place. Avoid buildings that were characteristic of a particular company, e.g. LNW pre-fabs, GW early 20th Century standard designs or Southern Art Deco concrete. Plenty of stations were built in the then fashionable architectural style.  Elsewhere we have discussed Jacobean Revival stations, found in a variety of places, from the North Staffs to Suffolk.  I am building a station set in Norfolk based on designs of the South Eastern and the Newcastle & Carlisle!  If you use red brick and Welsh slate and avoid a giveaway local stone, or flint, you will also help yourself to be flexible.

 

Try to make as much of the infrastructure neutral, by assuming that signalling was purchased from Saxby & Farmer or Holland & McKenzie using their house designs. You will, as you expect, have to swap in some substitute stuff, but with some careful planning you can keep this to the minimum.

 

Good luck and have fun!

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Congratulations. What a difference!! You have created a plan that not only be intetesting, but has a real chance of being built successfully. The only point i would make echos the one from Gordon. Transposing the 2 return loops to keep the levels correct then youve pretty much cracked it

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you all for your feedback: that is most helpful. Gordon: the 2d plan in SCARM is incorrect in so far as it shows the rear reversing loop passing under the front fiddle yard roads: the 3d representation shows what is actually happening here. The heights are set correctly in SCARM, so the drawing order is presumably not related to the heights set.

 

Satan's Goldfish: the plan is not intended to be a model of a specific place, although I have taken some inspiration from Bournemouth West and from Brighton, whose track plans I have been able to find online. Norwich Thorpe looks interesting and I have saved those track plans for future reference, although my initial thought is that the ratio of station throat to platform length is too great to fit into the space without making the platforms too short. However, it may be that there are features of this plan that are useful to inspire this fictional location, so I will bear that in mind for future reference if and when I want to modify the track plan. It is also also useful to know that a vaguely similar sort of station to that which I am planning did exist in East Anglia which might well justify that as an alternative setting.

 

Edwardian - thank you indeed for the tips on generic buildings: that is most helpful. That way, I can reduce the number of things that need to be switched out and keep the swapping within manageable levels. I do not think that I can get away with not swapping the signals, however, at least if I want to have one of the places represented being on the GWR, as the GWR continued to use lower quadrant signals until long after nationalisation, whereas the SR and LNER both used upper quadrant; but I imagine that I could get away with using generic looking upper quadrant signals for both the SR and LNER settings. I was also thinking that I might want to change the era in future, too, by the same method (if and when I master the art of kit building stock), which would also need the signals to be changed if I were to go back before the 1920s (moving back to the 1920s I do not imagine would require anything other than road vehicles and rolling stock to change, and even some of those could remain the same).

 

Denbridge - thank you. See above on the reversing loops.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you all for your feedback: that is most helpful. Gordon: the 2d plan in SCARM is incorrect in so far as it shows the rear reversing loop passing under the front fiddle yard roads: the 3d representation shows what is actually happening here. The heights are set correctly in SCARM, so the drawing order is presumably not related to the heights set.

 

Satan's Goldfish: the plan is not intended to be a model of a specific place, although I have taken some inspiration from Bournemouth West and from Brighton, whose track plans I have been able to find online. Norwich Thorpe looks interesting and I have saved those track plans for future reference, although my initial thought is that the ratio of station throat to platform length is too great to fit into the space without making the platforms too short. However, it may be that there are features of this plan that are useful to inspire this fictional location, so I will bear that in mind for future reference if and when I want to modify the track plan. It is also also useful to know that a vaguely similar sort of station to that which I am planning did exist in East Anglia which might well justify that as an alternative setting.

 

Edwardian - thank you indeed for the tips on generic buildings: that is most helpful. That way, I can reduce the number of things that need to be switched out and keep the swapping within manageable levels. I do not think that I can get away with not swapping the signals, however, at least if I want to have one of the places represented being on the GWR, as the GWR continued to use lower quadrant signals until long after nationalisation, whereas the SR and LNER both used upper quadrant; but I imagine that I could get away with using generic looking upper quadrant signals for both the SR and LNER settings. I was also thinking that I might want to change the era in future, too, by the same method (if and when I master the art of kit building stock), which would also need the signals to be changed if I were to go back before the 1920s (moving back to the 1920s I do not imagine would require anything other than road vehicles and rolling stock to change, and even some of those could remain the same).

 

Denbridge - thank you. See above on the reversing loops.

 

In terms of the permanent way, generally the classic look that obtained until the end of the steam age and beyond, is settled from the 1910s. In the 1900s and before, you still see evidence of top dressing of ballast (over the sleepers).  By etc.1910, outside sidings, most places will be laid with bullhead, and a station of yours would have been so for some time, turnouts are renewed with through timbers etc.

 

Signals are probably the greatest challenge.  Note the change to yellow distant signals - 1927 in the case of the GW.

 

I reckon back-dating to cover 1910s - 1930s is feasible, with a little thought and care.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Edwardian - thank you. I had not realised that the GWR was so late in changing distants to yellow! That is, perhaps, not unsurprising in retrospect. It was to circa 1910 that I had planned ultimately to be able to backdate (so as to be able to have separate setups for the 1930s, 1920s and 1910s), so this seems potentially feasible. Going back to the 1910s would probably also require the figures of people around the layout to be changed, too, but I am told that a good technique for doing this is to have them connected to brass rods fitting into holes in the platforms/baseboards.

 

In any event, the plan is, if I go with this layout, to start with the SR in the 1930s and add stock/signals/scenic items for other places and eras at a later time if and when this appears feasible.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

This looks much more practicable than your previous idea, and of course if the bullhead double slip arrives by the time you reach the tracklaying stage its use could potentially save space in the station throat, and allow the "Brighton Line" gradient to start sooner and therefore be gentler.


 


My main query relates to the goods sidings on one side of the platforms and the goods shed on the other.  Given the absence of run-round loops, I don't see how any arriving freight train could be dealt with, or even simply reformed for departure with the brake van moved to the other end.  Personally I wouldn't want a setup without goods operations, but that means I wouldn't model a terminus of this size, because they generally didn't have any, apart from parcels (and maybe pigeons!) which were generally dealt with on the passenger platforms.  So given your stated preferences, I would ditch all those freight facilities and let the terminus breathe a little more.


 


A minor point - I see the throat allows the Brighton lines to access all platforms, and the London lines all but two.  I might drop the two crossovers nearest the buffers, which wouldn't lose a lot of that accessibility but would again shorten the throat.  Or move one or both of them down to the buffer end of a pair of platform roads and use them for engine release.  Just provides an alternative to always removing the coaches by using the station pilot or a second train engine.


 


Final thought - can you reach that turntable OK if the need arises?


 


Cheers


 


Chris

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

As the station is fed by two seperate main lines, how about a bit of seperation in the middle of the platform areas to give two different operating companies?, similar to the GWR/SR lines in the west country, although I realise you will lose a bit real eatate for the sidings.

 

Mike.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you both for your thoughts. I had wondered about goods sidings, as I know less about goods than passenger operations. The sidings that I have included were based on Bournemouth West, but that was a somewhat smaller station:

 

bournemouthwest1956.jpg

 

Even Brighton seems to have had some goods docks between platforms 3 and 4:

 

4d22a55fff598a47ce7c301ec26db59b.jpg

 

and Brighton is a larger station than that which I am planning (11 platforms, 3 main lines, rather than 7 platforms and 2 main lines). However, Brighton had a separate goods depot, so perhaps the docks were just for parcels and milk?

 

If we imagine that this station is in a town with a substantial dockyard (as may be the case with all of the three different locations that might be substituted by changing signals/signs/buildings, etc.), one might plausibly imagine that there is a major goods terminal at the dockyard, and therefore that this passenger station needs little in the way of goods facilities. Would such a station, do you think, then have no goods facilities at all, or might it have some limited goods facilities for, say, goods in wagons to supply the town (or would these be more likely to be unloaded at the dockyard goods terminal)? I should be interested in knowing a little more about goods working to understand how to deal with this aspect of things, as I was somewhat unsure about this.

 

As to the turntable, the earlier version of this plan had a larger cut-out at the left hand end, but I altered the size of this to accommodate reversing loops for a separate, smaller layout underneath based on the London Underground. The distance between the edge of the baseboard and the centre of the turntable on this plan I measure to be ~800mm. The only other place that I can think to put the turntable would be where the engine shed is now, effectively swapping the position of the engine shed and turntable, but I am not sure whether that would be any better.

 

Might increasing the cut-out size of the upper level nonetheless be useful even if a separate layout on a lower level below were protruding beyond the relevant points on the upper level?

Edited by jamespetts
Link to post
Share on other sites

Six years ago, I was playing around with a busy terminus and Bastille came up several times.  Eventually I ended up with seven platforms and a double main line.  With some help from Mike, we ended up every platform accessible from both the main lines and the real plus was that incoming and outgoing trains could run at the same time without blocking the terminus.

 

It's one of those I really regret not building, but might one day....

 

It might give you some ideas James, so could be worth 5 minutes of your time.

 

http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/60091-00-minories-track-plan-wanted/page-4

Link to post
Share on other sites

Edwardian - thank you. I had not realised that the GWR was so late in changing distants to yellow! That is, perhaps, not unsurprising in retrospect. It was to circa 1910 that I had planned ultimately to be able to backdate (so as to be able to have separate setups for the 1930s, 1920s and 1910s), so this seems potentially feasible. Going back to the 1910s would probably also require the figures of people around the layout to be changed, too, but I am told that a good technique for doing this is to have them connected to brass rods fitting into holes in the platforms/baseboards.

 

In any event, the plan is, if I go with this layout, to start with the SR in the 1930s and add stock/signals/scenic items for other places and eras at a later time if and when this appears feasible.

 

My suggestions would be:

 

Andrew Stadden figures for 1910s

 

Monty's/Dart figures for 1920s and 1930s

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

I can't see the benefit in the London line climbing over the Brighton line.

 

It avoids one reverse loop needing to cross the other line using two diamonds, which was a "feature" (definitely not a benefit) of the earlier plan. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Is the bullhead track a critical feature? If you can live without it then I'd look at trying to rip off Brighton (ignoring the west coastway and its platforms).

 

If you're planning on doing something 1930s ish, I'd be very surprised to see a station of this size without any diamonds or slips in the throat. As it is it looks a bit more like a "rationalised by BR" kind of layout, and as such would suit a post 1980 scene.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Given the ambition of the plan and the use of a purpose-built structure, I infer that James is not short of a bob or two.

 

So, perhaps it is worth looking at pre-built turnouts and slips. SMP Marcway do some, and probably also C&L.  These will be Code 75 chaired BH, so can probably be integrated with the Peco track-work without too much difficulty.  Any difference in sleeper thickness can be easily dealt with via thin card shim. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

Thank you both for your thoughts. I had wondered about goods sidings, as I know less about goods than passenger operations. The sidings that I have included were based on Bournemouth West, but that was a somewhat smaller station:

 

[picture snipped]

 

Even Brighton seems to have had some goods docks between platforms 3 and 4:

 

[picture snipped]

 

and Brighton is a larger station than that which I am planning (11 platforms, 3 main lines, rather than 7 platforms and 2 main lines). However, Brighton had a separate goods depot, so perhaps the docks were just for parcels and milk  1 ?

 

If we imagine that this station is in a town with a substantial dockyard (as may be the case with all of the three different locations that might be substituted by changing signals/signs/buildings, etc.), one might plausibly imagine that there is a major goods terminal at the dockyard, and therefore that this passenger station needs little in the way of goods facilities. Would such a station, do you think, then have no goods facilities at all 2, or might it have some limited goods facilities for, say, goods in wagons to supply the town (or would these be more likely to be unloaded at the dockyard goods terminal)? I should be interested in knowing a little more about goods working to understand how to deal with this aspect of things, as I was somewhat unsure about this.

 

As to the turntable, the earlier version of this plan had a larger cut-out at the left hand end, but I altered the size of this to accommodate reversing loops for a separate, smaller layout underneath based on the London Underground. The distance between the edge of the baseboard and the centre of the turntable on this plan I measure to be ~800mm. The only other place that I can think to put the turntable would be where the engine shed is now, effectively swapping the position of the engine shed and turntable, but I am not sure whether that would be any better 3.

 

Might increasing the cut-out size of the upper level nonetheless be useful even if a separate layout on a lower level below were protruding beyond the relevant points on the upper level 4 ?

 

I expect someone who actually knows will tell you the facts about Bournemouth and Brighton, so I won't speculate unless they don't ...... (though I think you're probably right about parcels and maybe milk)

 

In my opinion your station would have no goods facilities, there would be a goods yard elsewhere, and a separate link from the goods yard to the docks (because docks authorities wouldn't want local traffic like cattle, coal and general merchandise cluttering up their quaysides).

 

I think swapping the turntable and stabling roads would have advantages, not least because you could then have a physical engine shed (or maybe a shallow low relief front) over the stabling roads in the top corner if you wanted one.  You can't have a shed over more than one of the stabling roads as things stand (though the effect of the angled roads might look good).

 

Finally, my mind just can't contemplate building another layout if you take this one on, but having anything protruding into an access manhole at a lower level sounds a very very bad idea to me.

 

Cheers

 

Chris

Edited by Chimer
Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you for your various thoughts. I deal with some specific issues raised below.

 

Slips and crossings

 

I designed this track plan to be able to use Peco Bullhead track as currently available. I am still considering whether and to what extent that SMP/Marcway is a viable alternative. However, I do not know the extent to which this is designable on a computer. I know the cost of the pre-fabricated points and crossings from Marcway (which are actually cheaper than the Peco Bullhead equivalents), but I do not know the cost of custom built Marcway crossings. If this is not vastly more than their prefabricated track or Peco Bullhead, then it might be worth considering this in more detail. I can see that slips and diamonds would be most useful towards the left hand side of the upper line as they would allow the entrance to the shed to take less space, and also on the upper right hand side, as they would do something similar for the upper platforms.

 

I would need to be very clear on precisely what I might be able to fit into the space and how to design it if I were to use SMP/Marcway products. Would one design the track layout using Templot and simply send the file to the Marcway people for them to produce the necessary pointwork? Does anyone here have any experience of ordering custom crossings, etc., from Marcway? I should be very grateful for any information in this regard.

 

I do agree that having some slips and diamonds would enhance the appearance of the era. Of course, if the Peco Bullhead versions are released before I come to need them, then that solves the problem. However, I find it reassuring to have a workable plan that does not involve the uncertainties of either the Peco Bullhead release date or the design process and cost of Marcway custom pointwork.

 

Goods facilities

 

The information here seems to be a little uncertain as to whether a station of any given size would have goods facilities. Can anyone direct me to any useful sources on this? One thing to note is that this station has two separate main lines converging only at the point of the station, so, unless each of them had their own, separate goods facilities, the goods facilities for the town would have to be in the station. Another possibility, of course, is that one of the two lines were attached to a major goods depot and the other not, necessitating goods facilities in the station for one line but not the other.

 

Does anyone know whether Swansea High Street (GWR) had goods sidings? Norwich Thorpe seems to have had some basic goods facilities. Can anyone direct me to a good source of information on the handling of goods traffic in medium sized towns in the early 20th century?

 

The engine shed

 

May I ask why it is thought that I could not fit a structure over the sheds as the now stand - is it that the tracks are too close together, is it related to the angle of the tracks, or something else? I had planned to have an actual shed over all of these roads, so if this is a problem, this would need re-thinking. I am not sure that I understand the purpose of a low relief front, since I would need to be able to drive the locomotives into the shed: I do plan to have a system involving an actual timetable which keeps track of locomotive maintenance requirements as part of the operational interest of the layout, requiring an operator (in semi-automatic mode) or the computer (if fully automated) to select an appropriate locomotive for a departing service that has been maintained and refuelled appropriately, which maintenance takes a specified time and can only occur actually in the shed.

 

Is the ability to have a physical shed the only advantage to swapping the turntable and the shed, or are there other advantages (or possibly even disadvantages) to this arrangement?

 

Incidentally, with the design shown in the picture linked in this thread, there should be no protrusion from the lower layers, as lower tracks would be underneath the space given for the upper baseboards: the hole was larger in the first version of this design. In this version of the design, the hole is 40cm wide at its widest point, and between ~60cm and 1m long.

 

Miscellaneous

 

Thank you for your suggestions as to the figures - it may be a while before I get to that level of scenic detail, but I shall try to remember to refer to this thread when I get to that point!

 

Joseph - the idea of the differing heights is twofold: (1) to prevent conflicting movements in the fiddle yard; and (2) to allow both reversing loops to be of 572mm radius, rather than having to have an inner loop of 505mm radius.

 

In relation to using Brighton modified to remove the whole Western section as a template, that is an interesting idea. I am not sure how well that that would fit in the space, however. Would you also recommend replicating the two goods docks at the Eastern end of Brighton station shown in the above diagram?

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...