Etched Pixels Posted June 21, 2011 Share Posted June 21, 2011 Two comments I think Firstly for the station area another one take a glance at is Swansea - that has four platforms, a curve around and quite an interesting layout as historically it had heavy industry on the one side and sidings plus a third route up towards Morriston on the other - the first layer of sidings still survive and are used for things like overnight HST stabling. There was once a line down to the docks as well but that turned into a stub by the 1970s and is now car parking. Comparing it with your layout - there is no crossover, instead historically locomotive changes occurred there or a station pilot was used and stock shunted between platforms or into the sidings (which do have a run around). Nowdays with almost all traffic units there is no pilot and only the mail used to need to reverse. There the 67 brought it in, propelled it into the sidings, ran around and propelled it back (PCVs each end of the rake) Secondly the freight and loco sidings in general look too complex and tangled for a modern setup. If you've got the width I'd take a single line into the fiddle area that curves around and through the industry including a runaround and which has the loco sidings off it. You don't need them near the passenger area and loco movements will otherwise get in the way. All the reversing and small sidings costs real money so when stuff got modernised it generally got sorted out. It also means you can cheat and model one end of a large scrapyard, steel handling terminal, mixed whatever, indeed if you take the loop through the backscene nobody can tell how much train is still offscene right 8). Plenty of examples of steel yards, scrap terminals etc in built up areas -. ASW Newport for example even includes radio control 08s with flashing lights and a 73 at the moment. That would also clean up the front of the layout by the station which would need nothing at all but scenery (or perhaps a single road off the front platform for DMU servicing but given most locations shrank and turnaround times went down there would probably be platform space for it) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium newbryford Posted June 21, 2011 RMweb Premium Share Posted June 21, 2011 I would concur with Katier that your goods loop is too short - even though you've made it longer - it still looks like it won't hold much more than 6-8 4-wheel wagons. Modern bulk freight operations such as cement and aggregates usually have far longer trains. Is there any reason why the goods loop can't be combined with the upper platform in the plan to create a long run-round loop? The loading/unloading sidings could be shorter, dictating that the train is split when shunted. For that reason, I would drop the aggregate siding and put two in for cement receiving. And don't forget to have large tracts of flat derelict land - or built on by retail parks - at the side of the existing railway. Cheers, Mick Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Katier Posted June 22, 2011 Share Posted June 22, 2011 I had that thought too Mick, indeed this is how Withernsea's station throat trackwork worked, it used the bay platform as the loco release. Withernseas track plan is unusual but in terms of handling the runaround lines would be very useable. The following thread is a discussion of it. http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/37296-is-withernsea-unique/page__st__25 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
QRModeller Posted June 23, 2011 Author Share Posted June 23, 2011 Hi everyone. WOW!! Thanks for the replies!! I like the switch to a cemet terminal, but given the urban location I would make it a receiving point as cement works can be quite big. I used to pass one everyday when I went to work - http://www.geograph....k/photo/1392858 Just look how the pub is dwarfed by the works! Have a look at this thread about Northenden Cement Terminal - you can still have two or three roads and shunting potential but it would be more in keeping I think. Easington lane features a rather nice cement terminal - http://www.emgauge70..._easington.html Glad you like it James, thanks for the links. The Northenden Cement Terminal thread link helped with my re-design of the cement terminal. Class 60 is 70ft long, so 280mm (approx), thus you can extend your runaround by 100mm and still have enough room. Thanks for that Katier, loco release is now shortened and the run-around lengthened. ... Secondly the freight and loco sidings in general look too complex and tangled for a modern setup. If you've got the width I'd take a single line into the fiddle area that curves around and through the industry including a runaround and which has the loco sidings off it. You don't need them near the passenger area and loco movements will otherwise get in the way. All the reversing and small sidings costs real money so when stuff got modernised it generally got sorted out. ... Hi Etched Pixels, thanks for the tip. I know the sort-of loco depot would probably look different on the prototype, I'm just using modellers license to include a bit of everything! I would concur with Katier that your goods loop is too short - even though you've made it longer - it still looks like it won't hold much more than 6-8 4-wheel wagons. Modern bulk freight operations such as cement and aggregates usually have far longer trains. Is there any reason why the goods loop can't be combined with the upper platform in the plan to create a long run-round loop? The loading/unloading sidings could be shorter, dictating that the train is split when shunted. For that reason, I would drop the aggregate siding and put two in for cement receiving. And don't forget to have large tracts of flat derelict land - or built on by retail parks - at the side of the existing railway. Cheers, Mick Hi Mick. I don't really mind if my cement trains are way shorter than what they are in real life - to me, about 15 wagons gives enough of an impression that the terminal is quite busy, especially if the wagons already there are exchanged for new ones. The reason the upper platform wasn't been combined with the run-around is a retaining wall will be installed about 50-70mm behind that platform so I didn't want to risk making it cramped. It will also be fairly busy with passenger traffic so there would be limited opportunities for a cement train to use the loop. Now for trackplan Mk. V!! Following the advice of James and Mick (newbryford), the cement terminal now receives cement instead of creating it. Also, following Etched Pixels' advice, I have made it independant of the main passenger lines. This means that locos bringing in cement wagons are no-longer going to move to the loco re-fuelling and stabling area once their train is being un-loaded and will instead replace the existing wagons with the incoming ones. The run-around loop is now 2000mm long so that should be long enough for about 15 to 17 four-wheeled wagons including clearances from the points and the adjacent line. For those of you who are curious as to how the scenery is going to look, here is the same plan but with scenic elements added. The trains are going to enter through tunnels (how original!!) and both the passenger/loco yard and cement terminal lines will pass a signal box before arriving at the respective destinations. The road (dark grey) and footpaths (light grey) that cross the tracks near the station will be on an overbridge (most likely the Scalescenes kit but modified) while the remainder of the roads will (in theory) be on solid ground with a retaining wall (Scalescenes again) preventing the earth collapsing from underneath them and onto the railway. The yellow strip along the top will be a combination of the various shop frontages that come with the Scalescenes Low-relief High Street and Low-relief Cinema and Department Store kits. The station building (orange shape) will be multiple story (scratchbuilt, possibly using Scalescenes texture sheets) and will have the main entrance and a carpark on the lower floor (rail level). There will be another entrance on the side of the building that opens out onto the upper level road. The wierd-looking cut-outs on the upper level road are for carparks and bus stop with the bus stop being the one closest to the station out of the two longer ones. There will be smaller buildings associated with the loco depot around that area and possibly an acces road leading to it that runs under the overpass. The cement terminal will probably only take up the board that the two sidings are on which means, I might be able to include some warehouses on the board with the majority of the run-around loop like I originally intended to do. Yay!! That just leaves the area between the corner of the board and the mainline to have something put in it. Any ideas? As always, thanks for the help everyone. Let me know what you think of the current plan. Matt. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Katier Posted June 23, 2011 Share Posted June 23, 2011 Looking a LOT better. I THINK what etched pixels had in mind was the setup I have for my Park Street project. Park Street is literally a triple track layout. The third ( inner in your case) line is the bi-directional goods relief line and IS joined to the other two lines with a single cross over. This is to allow loco's access to the loco facilities. In my case the loco facilities were off the goods line ( so passenger loco's would cross onto the relief line for access for fuel etc. ), in your case goods locos need to be able to cross over to the loco stabling between turns. I think Etched was suggesting you had the loco facilities on the same side as the goods and this probably would work better. If you have the cross over where the signal box is, then have your loco facilities either between the cement works and the relief line, or on the other side of the run around loop. You'll need to do something because currently you don't really have anywhere for your shunter to sit when it's not working. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
QRModeller Posted June 24, 2011 Author Share Posted June 24, 2011 Thanks Katier. I did realise that Etched Pixels meant that I move the loco facilities to the rear of the cement terminal but I'm happy with its' current position. Regarding operation, I decided to have locos bring in loaded cement tankers to replace the empty ones that are already there so therefore, the loco would not be moving to the stabling roads. Because of this, I'll just run locos 'light engine' into the depot from 'other' nearby yards for re-fuelling. This also meant that I had to make the hard decision to not have an 08 on the layout as the resident shunting locomotive. I have just noticed a flaw with my intended operations for the oil discharge siding though. Locos arriving with oil tankers are fine as they will just run into platform 4 (the one closest to the front of the layout) and wait until the line is clear so they can move to the yard. However, in order for the loco to leave at the head of the train, both of the main running lines are required so the loco can run around its train. Should I include a single crossover from the departure road (outer of the two main lines) to the depot to act as a run-around loop which would then clear the main lines for passenger trains? Matt. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glorious NSE Posted June 24, 2011 Share Posted June 24, 2011 Hope you don't mind, i've tweaked your latest with a couple of suggestions 1. Bit of a realignment to try and reduce the S-curve on the approach which didn't look to have a good reason scenically 2. Swap over the crossovers on the main line approach, you can now get to the depot from any platform and the track flows with the curves better. 3. Use the main line as the runround for departing cement trains as per Mick's suggestion above, not only does this 'tie in' the ops up there as being part of the same railway but it saves you a point and allows your loco to go for fuel if needed. You could do this a different way with the loco using the platform road to reverse in, but this keeps your platform clear. 4. Catch point on the depot exit. Ref the operation of the depot tanks, that's your reason to keep a resident 08! Your arriving train can come into a platform road and shunt back into the sidings, when the tanks depart the 08 pulls them into a platform road and the train loco then comes from stabling to take the train away. You could also use the 08 to shunt release loco hauled coaching stock and do away with the platform crossover if you wanted...more ops and less expensive infrastructure, what's not to like. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
QRModeller Posted June 24, 2011 Author Share Posted June 24, 2011 Hi Glorious NSE. Hope you don't mind, i've tweaked your latest with a couple of suggestions ... Not at all! ... Ref the operation of the depot tanks, that's your reason to keep a resident 08! Your arriving train can come into a platform road and shunt back into the sidings, when the tanks depart the 08 pulls them into a platform road and the train loco then comes from stabling to take the train away. You could also use the 08 to shunt release loco hauled coaching stock and do away with the platform crossover if you wanted...more ops and less expensive infrastructure, what's not to like. :yahoo: :yahoo: Thank you so much for that!!! Regarding the use of the main line as a run-around for the cement terminal, would the loco then leave with the cement tankers on the main line or on the freight line? I couldn't quite work out the operating sequence. Matt. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Posted June 24, 2011 Share Posted June 24, 2011 The plan's looking very nice now; I think the cement terminal will really look the part! I also think Martin's suggestions are really worth considering - joining the two parts operationally would really add to the whole layout I think. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glorious NSE Posted June 24, 2011 Share Posted June 24, 2011 Regarding the use of the main line as a run-around for the cement terminal, would the loco then leave with the cement tankers on the main line or on the freight line? I couldn't quite work out the operating sequence. No probs Matt Here's roughly what I would see the full track arrangement might be on the real thing - with the left hand crossovers being off-scene and maybe half a mile away or so... The freight would arrive straight onto the goods line, so would appear 'on scene' on the goods line, then it would shunt the terminal. (Depending on era/preference you might want to have either more than one terminal or a more 'general user' terminal, either would work. If you're intending it to be *very* modern then sticking with unit trains moving one commodity is most believable, but going back to circa 1990 or earlier there was a decent amount of mixed 'wagonload' traffic to terminals that had multiple users) Once the train has shunted and it's got it's outbound train formed up the loco would run up to the station end and use the crossovers to get out onto the 'outbound' main line and would leave the 'scenic' bit of the layout. Offscene the driver would change ends and bring the loco back across the crossovers and then it would reappear on the goods line to couple to it's train and take it away. So the wagons would always be on the goods line, you're just using the main lines for the loco to do a runround move. Less track and no restriction on how much you can runround! And if the loco needs to visit the stabling point for fuel or to wait time before departure you can easily build that into that runround move. Hope that description makes sense. I've also drawn an alternative arrangement of the tracks for that bit - the original means you keep platform 4 clear for passenger trains, the latter maybe saves a little space if you wanted...either lets you do the move. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
QRModeller Posted June 25, 2011 Author Share Posted June 25, 2011 Hey everyone. Thanks for the comment James. ... Hope that description makes sense. ... Thanks Glorious NSE, clear as mud!! ... (Depending on era/preference you might want to have either more than one terminal or a more 'general user' terminal, either would work. If you're intending it to be *very* modern then sticking with unit trains moving one commodity is most believable, but going back to circa 1990 or earlier there was a decent amount of mixed 'wagonload' traffic to terminals that had multiple users) ... I would like to have more rail served industries as I'm not really going to work to a set period locomotive, multiple unit and rolling stock wise (if I like it, it's going to be used). However, I am going to say anything older than BR Blue (with a few exceptions) and anything newer than and including Virgin Voyagers won't be running, but that will probably be subject to change!! I do have a list of what classes of loco and multiple units I would like to run: 37s, 47s, 60s, the 08 and a 33 (BR Blue - long story!!), 150s, 153s, 156s, 158/159s and 170s. Oh yeah, and HSTs. There may also be two or three steam specials but I'm unsure what loco classes I'll use. An updated trackplan incorperating Glorious NSE's 'tweaks' won't appear for about a week as I'm going on holidays but watch this space!! As always, thanks everyone for the feedback and comments. Matt. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
QRModeller Posted July 4, 2011 Author Share Posted July 4, 2011 I'm back! Firstly, here's trackplan Mk.VI: and again but with scenery (not really necessary because only the signal box has moved): Basically, the plan now shows the suggestions made by Glorious NSE. The only thing that has changed that already existed is the loco yard, which has been shuffled up and left a bit. I'm just wondering if I should add another industry into the space above the freight line, a factory/warehouse that receives/dispatches VDAs perhaps? I just think that something should be there to continue the relief along the backscene. As always, thanks for the feedback and please keep the comments coming. Matt. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Posted July 4, 2011 Share Posted July 4, 2011 I'm just wondering if I should add another industry into the space above the freight line, a factory/warehouse that receives/dispatches VDAs perhaps? I just think that something should be there to continue the relief along the backscene. I'd leave it as it is. It captures the sprawling nature of a rationalised inner city site rather well as it stands Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Etched Pixels Posted July 4, 2011 Share Posted July 4, 2011 If you want to keep the flow then I'd have thought something like modern industry with no rail access built straight across what looks like it was an old yard was more believable and less cluttered, or even perhaps some suitably nasty tower blocks or other typically dire 70s urban 'reclamation' Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
QRModeller Posted July 6, 2011 Author Share Posted July 6, 2011 HI, me again. Thanks for the input James and Etched Pixels. I've had a bit of a think about it now and it seems that I'll put either a modified Scalescenes apartment block in the space or some low relief warehouses like I originally planned to do. Matt. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
PWSlack Posted July 8, 2011 Share Posted July 8, 2011 Two comments as general design principles on any model layout: Consider eliminating all straight track. Straight track is nowhere near as common on the prototype as proprietary track manufacturers would have one buy. If straight track is unavoidable, consider laying no track parallel to the baseboard edge. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
QRModeller Posted July 9, 2011 Author Share Posted July 9, 2011 Hi PWSlack, thanks for the input. The only dead straight track I have in the plan is in the station area and all of the points (I think, there may be a curved one in there somewhere). The station is only going to be straight becuase I'm still a beginner so it will be easier for me to make. Otherwise, the station would have a grand curve in the middle of it. When I actually build the layout, some of the sidings and headshunts will be curved a bit more than what is shown on the plan. Also, I have made sure no track is parallel to the baseboard edge. (Unless you want to start talking about angles and all of that mind-numbingly boring maths stuff!!) Matt. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Flying Pig Posted July 9, 2011 RMweb Premium Share Posted July 9, 2011 Straight track is nowhere near as common on the prototype as proprietary track manufacturers would have one buy. Straight track is far more common on the prototype than you appear to think, both on running lines and in stations and sidings. Straight lines don't always produce the most visually satisfying model but that's another matter. As ever photographs, maps and plans, of which there are plenty published (many available freely on the Web), are a better guide than dogma. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
QRModeller Posted October 3, 2011 Author Share Posted October 3, 2011 Well, this topic's been quiet for a while! Time to change that! The other day, I decided to draw up the fiddle yard plan for Oakworth: The dimensions are 5200 x 950mm at the largest point. I'm also planning on making a small board to link the scenic part of the layout to the fiddle yard which will make the total footprint of the layout 7000 x 3000mm! Now, purely because I can, here's the plans for the fiddle yard and scenic section together which roughly shows their relationship to each other: That's all for now, comments and feedback are most welcome. Matt. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Katier Posted October 3, 2011 Share Posted October 3, 2011 How is access to the fiddle yard achieved? The gap between the two boards looks very narrow. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
QRModeller Posted October 3, 2011 Author Share Posted October 3, 2011 Hi Katier. ... I'm also planning on making a small board to link the scenic part of the layout to the fiddle yard which will make the total footprint of the layout 7000 x 3000mm! ... I didn't include this because it will only be a small board with three straight lengths of track on it. Just noticed that the images of the fiddle yard are bigger than they should be! The fiddle yard will actually finish inline with the join between the two station boards. Matt. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
daryl43068 Posted November 7, 2011 Share Posted November 7, 2011 Hi Matt, A very interesting layout you are planning! I hope you don't mind me making a comment, how ever picky this may sound! When a loco is fuelled, it can take anywhere up to an hour or more (depending on fuel tank size and fuel delivery speed etc.) By your plan, if a loco was fuelled on the bottom line, it would block in stock on the loco stabling sidings or if it was fuelled on the top line, it would block in the entire depot, plus locos couldn't enter. Your Oil/Fuel Depot, is this for deliveries for the depot or a separate industry? I hope you take the comments in a positive view and not me being over picky!! I watch with interest! Cheers Daryl Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
QRModeller Posted November 8, 2011 Author Share Posted November 8, 2011 Hiya Daryl, thanks for the comment. R.e. refuelling, well... I hadn't really thought of that! To be honest, I havn't given much thought to the operations of this part of the layout at all, other than that the fuel depot will occasionally receive one or two TTAs to replenish the storage tanks for the of sorts depot and locos and DMUs will get refuelled/stabled. Hmm, looks like a slight re-design may be in order then! Matt. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
QRModeller Posted November 12, 2011 Author Share Posted November 12, 2011 Following on from my last post, here's my re-designed yard: I haven't done it on the full plan because that's at the 50 track piece limit of the Anyrail trial version, and comparing this to the previous effort, I think I prefer that one. Basically, what I have done is shift the yard to the left, added a turnout to the entry road and replaced the existing turnout on the lower refuelling road with a double slip. I've also swapped the oil/fuel depot with the siding next to it (which I can't remember what I put it there for!). With this design, the problem Daryl brought up that locos in the storage sidings would be unable to get out if a loco was refuelling on the lower road can be fixed. But, I'm still stuck if there is a loco refuelling on the upper road. On the subject of preference, I think I like the previous effort as it is not to big and I can use modellers license and timetabling to get around the problems Daryl mentioned. With this effort, I can fit a few more different DMUs into the storage sidings but the whole yard now looks a bit big for the space. Here they are for comparison: Current plan Re-designed yard What do you all think? Matt. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
class"66" Posted October 23, 2012 Share Posted October 23, 2012 Plans look realy good buddy... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.