Another MPD. Critique please!

[Memphis32]

Hi there,

 

First post, and I'm already asking for favours... I'm sure I'll start giving back once I get going!

 

My requirements for a layout are:

Continuous run, as I enjoy watching trains going by

Shunting interest, as I enjoy a good puzzle

Space for Locos, as they interest me far more than what they drag behind them

 

My available space is an insulated shed, 12" x 8" (less the thickness of the walls!), which is also a fairly general purpose workshop (mostly electronics and carpentry), so needs lots of storage. I have cut down the previously 5'5" shelving to about 4' with the intention of installing baseboards on top of these.

 

Having tried to cram in a station that would take 5 bogie coaches, a small MPD, a branch station and a goods yard, I've narrowed things down to just the MPD, but with a double main line passing by.

 

Here is the current plan. It is only based on the process of getting an engine through an MPD, rather than a specific prototype. I've tried to modify several real track plans and haven't come up with anything that seemed as good as this from an operational point of view, as well as having good modelling potential.

 

 

The left, bottom and right sides are not scenic for the moment, and some points need to go in the continuous runs, obviously, I'm just concentrating on the MPD for the mo. Also, the sharp curves top left would be hidden, either by the sheds in front or possibly a road bridge over the top. A lifting flap will be about two thirds along the bottom edge.

 

Any thoughts/questions?

[The Stationmaster]

I think the basic layout is pretty good - it might benefit from a separate incoming and outgoing road but that would be icing on the cake and you don't really have the space for it.  My only other point concerns the shed layout with two separate 2 road buildings whereas in real life a single building would - I think - have been far more likely as the shed yard is quite extensive.  the siting and serving of the turntable is a very neat idea and produces a very believable arrangement I think.

[Memphis32]

Thanks.

 

I had a few reasons for doing that, but it's not set in stone yet!!

 

- to maximise loco display area - if the lower shed was in line with (and joined to) the upper one, there would be less visible track for engines to sit on.

- to hide the curves behind as much as possible.

 

I had also had the idea that the MPD could have been enlarged during its lifetime, so the main line bridge was going to be two spans of different design, with the newer section over the storage sidings (where some engineering stock would sit, probably including a crane), so the lower shed would also be of newer design and possibly larger than the older upper one.

 

I agree about the in/out roads, but that's another reason for hiding that top left corner!

[Rowsley17D]

My concern would be how steep the gradient would need to be to get enough height to clear the sidings. From the MPD junction to the flyover is only about 13'. Even at 1 in 50 that's only 3" in height gain and most rtr steam outline locos would struggle with a load up that, unless of course the MPD entry road and associated sidings were on a falling gradient, then the rising gradient needn't quite as steep. All this is assuming 4mm, OO gauge of course.

[jon_1066]

One thing you could do is move the point to the MPD further round the layout.  This would allow you to drop the level of the MPD compared to the main line by putting a gradient on this access road.  Since this would be taking mostly very short service trains with a few wagons (as well as the unloaded locos) you could make it steeper with fewer worries about slippage.

[Memphis32]

Yup, I've been playing with that a bit. Two reasons for minimising the length of those gradients were to keep the points on the main baseboard, and also to minimise the width of the board down the left, as it's over desk space!

 

I've moved a few things around so another version (no major changes, so keep the ideas and criticisms coming!) should be out in a few days.

[Memphis32]

I had been expecting a few more scathing comments...

 

Any ideas about what sort of pointwork should be in the double track?

 

The only feature not shown so far is that I was planning to put in a small inglenook-style "diorama" in the lower left corner of the above plan (again aiming to hide the sharp double line corner behind scenic stuff), so a junction will need to be about two fifths along that lower edge. One or two storage/fiddle sidings may fit down the right-hand wall too.

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

One thing you could do is move the point to the MPD further round the layout.  This would allow you to drop the level of the MPD compared to the main line by putting a gradient on this access road.  Since this would be taking mostly very short service trains with a few wagons (as well as the unloaded locos) you could make it steeper with fewer worries about slippage.

 Good thought. Keep the running lines on a higher single level, and put all the gradient on the shed access road which light engines and loads of a few wagons will manage. I would be inclined to work on 'disappearing' the running lines in the top left corner, perhaps behind a large water tank or similar concealing them from view, and then put them (now out of sight) through the roof of a  larger single shed building, and the offices and fitters shop alongside to the rear. All too many steam depots were crammed in anyhow on crowded sites, especially in urban areas.

[Memphis32]

Many thanks for the comments! While I finalise the next draft, would anyone have a view on where an engineering/breakdown train might be kept. I'd originally had in mind to keep it on one of the sidings below the turntable, but I'd like to move the whole of the MPD section downwards (on the plan) to give more room for scenic stuff along the back. There would be room for a siding in between the coal stage loading ramp and the line below it, with buffers against the base of the coal stage. Half of me thinks "they would have used any space they had available", and half thinks "it's a really bad idea to put expensive mechanical equipment (a crane) right next to a coal stage"...

 

Any thoughts?

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

Make it a multilevel depot, and have the breakdown set on a siding parallel the running lines to avoid having to work the set up and down the steep shed access? There should be no objection from the point of view of 'prototype', the railway often positioned its facilities hither and yon with little apparent reason; that is until the historical development of the area and the constraints encountered along the way are known. The crane set might be on the original or 'old shed' site adjacent the running lines (1840), while the 'new' shed (1870) was built on a site which fell vacant later, to accomodate the increases in locomotive size and numbers.

 

If cunningly positioned it can then be used to crane shunt locos out of the yard onto the running lines after the access road is destroyed by a washout caused by the buried river course beneath. ;-)

[JeffP]

Only just spotted this.

 

I have two comments: the turntable at the far side of the overbridge is a novel idea which has some parallels in real life, BUT: unless the turntable is indexed, it will be difficult to line up by eye where it is.

 

Secondly, I feel the mainline going over the top of the depot means this would need to be a heavily urban setting. In any other setting, the shed is secondary to the mainline, and unless you show an urban setting, revealing the need for the mainline to go up and over, yours is in danger of looking like what you said it was: a shed...with a mainline going over it, so the reverse of what real life dictates.

 

Not a massive criticism, but worth thinking about?

[Memphis32]

Thanks for the comments.

 

34theletterbetweenB&D: I will try that out in SCARM and see if it can be workable. It will be an excuse to put a crossover on the scenic part of the running lines.

 

JeffP: Urban was the plan, though mainly so I can have some scenic variety - most of the photos I've seen of rural MPDs show them sprawled across flat wasteland with nothing around to model other than carriage/wagon sidings (which I don't have room for!). There was going to be low-relief council housing across the back of the MPD (the next revision will give more space for it!)

[Memphis32]

Right, having taken on board some of the comments, I have made the sheds into one building, put the breakdown train siding on the main line, and moved the access point further round to reduce the gradients. The pointwork has been tweaked and I think it looks a little more "organic" and less train-set-like now. More comments appreciated, and thanks again for everything so far!

 

[jon_1066]

Looking good.  Only query is over the Southern sidings.  You have a facing point on the inner line.  Can you make that trailing?  Also the cross over next to it looks at a sharp angle.  Peco do one with a shallower angle.

[Memphis32]

Ok, thanks. How's this? The sharper points and crossing were used so it didn't all end up parallel. I've still got a setrack point in this arrangement - I think as it's supposed to be an industrial private siding the sharper curve is ok.

 

 

I've put a pair of points at the other end of the headshunt so trains can be run around.

 

 

[roundhouse]

We have major delays on the Brighton line this morning due to over running engineering works.

 

So I thought it would be quite apt to show some Network Rail vehicles on Banbury!

[edcayton]

I think that you need at least a couple of loops on the bottom side to allow different trains, also the means to change loco's and get to/from the shed. You could avoid gradients for trains by having the entire main line at high level and a slope down to the mpd.

 

Ed

[Memphis32]

As the (garden) shed is used for other purposes, I don't have any more room to play with. I may be able to fit a couple of hidden carriage sidingas down the right-hand side, but they will be under a shelf, so the space is fairly tight. I have some ideas about building a fiddle yard on trestles that would be put out of the door, but as it would go where there is currently a lift-out section, it can be designed later.

 

edcayton, what did you mean specifically by "the means to change locos and get to/from the shed"?

[jon_1066]

Just a thought but how about scrapping the bottom industrial sidings and making that a place for a cassette type fiddle yard?  Your basic operations would then be Locos coming on and off shed.  By having a cassette arrangement there you can then clear the running line and have multiple movements.  The Locos could also be attached to trains there and then sent round your circuit.

 

eg an arrangement where a cassette with a train on it is put in place and the loco comes from the MPD - is attached the the train formation and then pulls it around the circuit.  If you keep the cassettes to about 4 carriages long (approx 1.1 m) then they should be OK to handle.  A longer train could be made up of two cassettes.  The whole thing can then be removed including the loco via a second shorter cassette.  You then have great flexibility in how you operate and what you can run.

[Memphis32]

I'd considered that. There's only just enough room for one cassette of that length in that space (the baseboard limits as shown on the plan are maximum areas I can use), and I don't think there's room for a decent runaround loop to allow trains to pull off in both directions, so had resigned myself to hand-of-god operation until the outside fiddle yard could be developed.

 

Having written that last paragraph, I've just had another play with SCARM and had a go at fitting some storage sidings under some shelving on the right-hand edge of the room. The indent on the RH edge is the batten that supports the shelf, so I can't put track under there. The only downside of that arrangement is that the points leading into the "fiddle yard" will be visible next to the bridge.

 

[jon_1066]

You could have room:

 

 

This is 10 feet long with space for 1.1m long cassettes

 

[Memphis32]

Jon_1066: I may use that or something similar eventually, but the storage sidings seem simpler to me for now, and as you've probably gathered, I do want to keep the shunting plank! You can get ready for an I-told-you-so if you like...

 

For now, I've tweaked a few curves here and there, and had a go at deciding on baseboard joints - not easy as points are so close together on the MPD. I don't need it to be easily portable, just moveable in the case of a house move! There doesn't seem to be a baseboard-specific subforum, so I guess it stays in this thread till pencil goes to plywood, then I start a Layout topics thread?

 

[jonny777]

I am not sure about the three turntable outlet roads. There seems to be little point in one of the bottom two, because the scissors crossover allows access to all the shed roads from the other one.

 

Unless you propose storing turned locos awaiting their next duty on one of course, but operationally that might be a nightmare for the shedmaster.

 

Given the gradient of the mainline approaching the depot, I suppose you could have one road reserved for banking engines, and have them shuttling to/from there to the rear of freight trains, but that might add a bit too much complexity.

 

If you can find an ex-locoshed foreman or equivalent, they may give you some critical analysis of the viability of the track layout. As far as I am aware, in a steam shed the locos would be coaled, watered and visit the ashpits before going on shed (although I am not an authority, so could be wrong) and would need the space to do this in order, without fouling the path of locos exiting to the running lines. Certain "naughty" drivers would manage a quick visit to the coaler just before departure as well, and this might cause problems. 

 

I think that it has great potential, and will be interested to see how the trackwork progresses in reality. Will you be building your own, because scissors crossovers can be a nightmare, and with RTR pointwork they seem to take up more (scale) space than they do on the real railway.

[Memphis32]

Jonny777: The intended function of each track, from the top of the board to the bottom, is: 1 Engineering/breakdown train siding; 2&3 double main line; 4 coaling ramp; 5 Locos in (ash, coaling, water, turning); 6 ash disposal wagons; 7 Locos in (turning and water only); 8 Locos out.

 

I had been led to believe that sheds that coaled on the way to the turntable benefitted from a bypass road for locos that just needed turning. The reason for the double slip and what you've called a scissors crossover (I had meant it to be functionally a larger double slip, but I guess they're the same!) is so that locos on shed can then be turned if needed without fouling the exit road.

 

I am going to be using RTR, but an SL-93 crossing is going to be irretrievably mutilated in the process, and the double slip and long points may have a few bits of webbing removed to make them a little less straight.

 

Hope that helps!

[Memphis32]

A little reshuffle of the baseboard joins, and the shed roads have been neatened up by moving the double slip. The same access to each road is there though. I've also changed the breakdown train siding to a stub, and put in another crossover for running around - what do you think?