Virney Junction - Scenery ongoing

[Ray H]

I have a strong suspicion that I may not have correctly grasped what you're suggesting Mike but this is very much my initial stab at something.

It gives me a down side lie-by siding and a short (parcels?) bay on the down side or it could be where the Goods Shed goes.

Everything is a simple turnout and I've tried to keep the number of facing points to a minimum.

Major drawbacks include:

• where to stand the remnants of up trains whilst they're being shunted (other than leave them on the running line)
• how to prepare a down branch train
• how to shunt a down "main line" train
• the only run round facility involves the use of the down lie-by and down "main" lines.

I'm also not too happy with the position of the "main line" trailing crossover. Its position is designed to minimise the amount of wrong line running on the down line. However, that has the affect of increasing the amount of wrong line running on the Up line.

The gradient will either need to start as the branch moves away from the Up line or the Main lines and the branch need to separate nearer to the station to allow for a gradual fall away of the ground sooner.

[The Stationmaster]

Ray,

 

First of all I would move that trailing crossover in the mainlines  much closer to the branch junction - always best, for practical full size reasons, to concentrate pointwork.

 

As a layout I quite like it but it then depends on how you see it working of course.  As far as your questions are concerned  -

1. Remnants of Up trains will be JLTRT, and left standing on the mainline (nowhere else to put them of course) while a train is shunted (can't stand them on the branch because of teh gradient).

2. A Down branch freight would either run straight onto the branch off the main or be prepared in the Down siding and then propelled back clear of the junction.

(Up freights would shunt the junction goods yard).

3. If there is any traffic off a Down freight for the yard or branch it would be detached on the Down side and left there for a branch train to collect.

4. A second mainline crossover to permit a run round wasn't at all unusual but might crowd the scene on a model railway and cause loss of any sense of space but it leaves a question about what you might want to run round?

 

As far as the bay line/whatever you use it for on the Up side you could readily connect it into the branch as your earlier plan but use a single slip which would give give you branch or goods yard to Up Main, and branch to 'bay' line (with a separate trap provided for the goods yard) but not goods yard to bay line.  Is that a bit clearer?

[Andrew P]

Hi Ray, there's nothing I can add as Mike is more than capable of giving you the very best of advice.

 

Just to say,

 

Happy New Year to you all for 2015 and beyond.

[Ray H]

Thanks Andy, and to you and Dee.

 

Hopefully we'll both have new and operational layouts in 2015 although whether we'll both end the year with the same layouts that we start the year with is something we may only discover in 31,536,000 seconds :-).

[Ray H]

Mike

 

I'm with you now (or at least think I am!)

 

I re-arranged the yard/up bay arrangement so that I could shunt the yard independent of movements on the branch. I'm not sure whether I prefer that facility to being able to reverse branch trains at the junction (and only being able to shunt the yard by using the up platform).

 

In some ways I like the restrictive facilities that the design imposes but I fear that it may actually take away some of the scope for sending wagons from the branch (down) towards Oxford. Thinking about it there's a similar restriction in the other direction as well. I could see a way to achieve it using the down lie-by but that would then remove the ability to recess trains in the lie-by if there were any wagons parked there pending their onward journey.

 

There would certainly be some interesting moves to reverse Banbury bound cattle trains from the west and change locos and brake vans at the same time.

 

Presumably the up branch train would need to pull into the up platform and set back on the up line and leave part of the train there to shunt the yard due to the gradient on the branch.

 

Thanks for your expert advice on this. All the best for 2015 to you and yours.

[Jock67B]

Evening Ray,

Apologies for missing the start of 'Virney' (senility?) so I'll try to catch up as the week goes by - hope 2015 brings all you expect and a very Happy New Year from Jock and Joanna.

[The Stationmaster]

Mike

 

I'm with you now (or at least think I am!)

 

I re-arranged the yard/up bay arrangement so that I could shunt the yard independent of movements on the branch. I'm not sure whether I prefer that facility to being able to reverse branch trains at the junction (and only being able to shunt the yard by using the up platform).

 

In some ways I like the restrictive facilities that the design imposes but I fear that it may actually take away some of the scope for sending wagons from the branch (down) towards Oxford. Thinking about it there's a similar restriction in the other direction as well. I could see a way to achieve it using the down lie-by but that would then remove the ability to recess trains in the lie-by if there were any wagons parked there pending their onward journey.

 

There would certainly be some interesting moves to reverse Banbury bound cattle trains from the west and change locos and brake vans at the same time.

 

Presumably the up branch train would need to pull into the up platform and set back on the up line and leave part of the train there to shunt the yard due to the gradient on the branch.

 

Thanks for your expert advice on this. All the best for 2015 to you and yours.

Basically 'yes' to all of that Ray.  Whether or not you can stand trains on the branch gradient to shunt depends on the gradient - shallower that 1 in 260 then ok, steeper than 1 in 260 and you would have to shunt off the mainline.

 

And a happy jNew Year to you (and other readers of the thread) too.

[Ray H]

Evening Ray,

Apologies for missing the start of 'Virney' (senility?) so I'll try to catch up as the week goes by - hope 2015 brings all you expect and a very Happy New Year from Jock and Joanna.

Thanks Jock, the wishes are reciprocated.

 

Virney is an intentional mis-spelling because unlike Andy's Bitton thread (and others) the similarities between my layout and the real Verney are becoming less as the days progress.

[Andrew P]

Thanks Jock, the wishes are reciprocated.

 

Virney is an intentional mis-spelling because unlike Andy's Bitton thread (and others) the similarities between my layout and the real Verney are becoming less as the days progress.

Hi Ray, in some ways I wish I had changed the Bitton name very slightly, I would still have stuck to the same track plan, but things like the Station Building and maybe adding a Foot Bridge would have been good, but now I will have to stick with what I have.

 

All the best for 2015 mate.

[Ray H]

With apologies to those fed up with the repeated uploading of plan variations.

 

This one ticks a few more boxes as it increases the scope for shunting in the yard at the Junction. It also leaves a little more space between the pillar in the garage wall and the nearest track.

 

I've removed the flat crossing and the crossover changes from trailing to facing.

 

I'm undecided whether to use the bay platform on the Down side for reversing branch trains or leave it as it was originally, a (now truncated) platform track that is a backwards extension of the down refuge siding, possibly usable by the occasional parcels vehicles and the like.

 

The up side "bay" is merely the headshunt for the goods yard and will behind the platform fence.

 

The branch gradient can now start/end close to the turnout furthest from the junction station.

 

The widest part of the layout at the station is thirty inches, a bit deeper than I'd like but at least there aren't any points at the rear of the board.

 

I'm presuming the coal merchant(s) will use the siding nearest to the edge of the board. The Goods Shed will be at the bridge end of the centre siding.

 

I'd be interested to learn how people would deal with reversing a loaded cattle train off the branch to then send it clockwise along the Down line to the fiddle yard. The train will depart with a different loco and the brake van into the bargain.

[The Stationmaster]

One thing, sorry two, which strike me immediately about that layout is the single lead junction onto the branch which introduces a mainline facing crossover - not the best way of giving a 'steam age' impression in a plan as such connections were rare in the steam age;  the other is the short loop in the goods yard which might be handy round a goods shed but otherwise steals siding length.

 

Now reversing that cattle train starts to get a lot more awkward without a trailing crossover!  As it is changing engines and brake vans it would be simple with a trailing crossover - stops on the Up line clear of the trailing crossover and the new engine crosses from the Down line onto it, detaches the brakevan and shunt is, via the Down line into the Down side bay; new engine then returns and attaches the train drawing it through the crossover onto the Down line and either shunting back onto the new brakevan standing in the Down platform or goes beyond the points into the refuge siding and then sets back onto the new brakevan standing in that siding.  Once it's out of the way the branch train crosses over and retrieves its brakevan.

 

Now try doing that with a facing crossover and you finish up having to run a substantial difference in the wrong direction on the Down Line when the cattle train first arrives - not good practice at a small place like this, but at least all your shunting is then carried out clear of the Up line.

[Ray H]

Wise words again Mike. Thanks.

 

I must say that I wasn't too happy with swapping the trailing crossover for the facing crossover arrangement and was partly tempted to add a trailing crossover as well but stopped short thereof as the previous arrangement shows.

 

I can see where you're coming from with the loop in the Goods Yard. Perhaps I've been looking at Andy's Bitton thread too often!

 

Thanks also for the suggestion for reversing off the branch (with the trailing crossover). I'd arrived at a similar version as well. The interesting version will be reversing to go onto the branch which will either involve a reversal across the trailing crossover to gain the Down platform so the shunting can be achieved on the level or reversal in the Up platform having stopped beforehand to attach the new brakevan. Whichever option I go for will add some interest to the operation and we haven't touched on sending the engine and brake away after (or getting them in position before)

 

Anyway, here's the latest version.

 

I've managed to lose about an inch off the widest part which is good.

 

There's still a bit of scope for increasing the length of the sidings in the yard but I'm puzzling over the best place to locate the Goods Shed.

 

Also nagging at me is whether to make the longest siding in the fiddle yard - the fourth from the bottom in the plan - bi-directional and limit myself to three through sidings in each direction adding crossovers as necessary - facing at one end, trailing at the other - to connect the long siding to the inner track as well.

 

I'm also considering adding a few terminal sidings for locos off the outer track at bottom right in the plan so that I can reverse a train on the long siding and put a fresh loco on it before it leaves.

Edited January 2, 2015 by Ray H

[The Stationmaster]

That looks a lot better I think Ray and offers some flexibility, especially for freight traffic.  Similarly your thoughts about the fiddle yard also add flexibility and don't overlook teh need for the branch passenger train to reverse there of course.  You might it interesting to look at tony Wright's thread about dead end storage sidings although he is working in a much larger space than you.

 

I continue to wonder about a goods shed? I must admit to bias as on my own plan (which might actually turn into a layout one day) I have gone, thus far, for a far simpler arrangement of just two sidings and no goods shed and part of the reason is to avoid over-powering the front of the scene with a quite substantial building within a relatively narrow (3ft or 2ft 6") baseboard width as the station will be behind the goods yard.  But it is very much a matter of personal choice and I think Andy is fitting it in rather well with similar space constraints on Bitton plus both of you are in a situation where a goods shed will not mask the view of the station.

[Ray H]

Winslow had a wooden Goods Shed that appears to be similar to the one in Buckingham Goods Yard. I'm half minded to model something like that.

 

Part of my thinking is that one would presume a fairly high level of goods traffic would have justified the three sidings in the yard and that in turn would have brought a requirement for covered storage of a reasonable size.

 

My inclination is to extend the middle of the three (yard) sidings and have the Goods Shed on that road. I may even slightly reduce the length of the siding nearest to the branch to facilitate positioning the shed somewhere other than at the extreme end of the adjacent siding. There's about twelve feet of siding space as the plan is currently drawn.

[Ray H]

I have to admit that I'd not initially considered the need to provide for trains to reverse in the fiddle yard.

 

I'm hoping to avoid too much manual involvement within the fiddle yard and as much as it grates, I fear I will have to leave most freight trains permanently on one road or another unless I want to keep swapping locos and brakevans from one end of a train to the other.

 

Fortunately reversal of DMUs is easy to accommodate and the parcels and loco hauled passenger trains only require a loco swap. The latter does pose a problem though if they're not to return almost instantaneously and prototypically that's not very likely. I fear another re-think (of the fiddle yard) may be imminent.

 

Is there a particular part of Tony's thread you're thinking of Mike? His Wright Writes thread is 137 pages long and seems to have numerous references to fiddle yards so I'd welcome a pointer to a specific area of the thread if at all possible.

[Andrew P]

I have to admit that I'd not initially considered the need to provide for trains to reverse in the fiddle yard.

 

I'm hoping to avoid too much manual involvement within the fiddle yard and as much as it grates, I fear I will have to leave most freight trains permanently on one road or another unless I want to keep swapping locos and brakevans from one end of a train to the other.

 

Fortunately reversal of DMUs is easy to accommodate and the parcels and loco hauled passenger trains only require a loco swap. The latter does pose a problem though if they're not to return almost instantaneously and prototypically that's not very likely. I fear another re-think (of the fiddle yard) may be imminent.

 

Is there a particular part of Tony's thread you're thinking of Mike? His Wright Writes thread is 137 pages long and seems to have numerous references to fiddle yards so I'd welcome a pointer to a specific area of the thread if at all possible.

Ray, Look at todays or maybe yesterdays pages for some fine pics and descriptions of its workings.

[Ray H]

Ray, Look at todays or maybe yesterdays pages for some fine pics and descriptions of its workings.

Cheers Andy (and Mike), that is some layout Tony has. I first became aware of it when I bought the Right Track DVD on track laying but I think the layout was still being built when the DVD was made. I've never seen those high level pictures before and they certainly do show the layout off to its full extent.

 

And those fiddle yards!

 

Maybe Tony and Gilbert (of Peterborough North fame) and probably others have managed to hit on one of the contributory factors for retaining interest in a model - the significant number of different trains that can be run. Maybe that's where a BLT scores. The same passenger train all day (with maybe a loco swap half way through), the daily trip working and maybe a couple of other assorted trains. Any more would be unprototypical.

 

I mentioned earlier that I'd need a minimum of six different passenger train sets to mimic the railway as it was in the latter days (and that assumes that stock wasn't routinely changed over at termini when there was ample time to attach a loco on the other end and send the same stock back again). I further suspect that I'd need more than six locos to work those six train sets - and we haven't touched on freight workings yet.

 

Maybe too many of us can accept a number of conscious compromises but the inability to run a plentiful number of different trains is something we sub-consciously can't accept. That said, I always fancied being a signalman. However I soon realised that I'd get bored very quickly in most boxes doing little more than spending eight hours (or however long the shift was) continually repeating the same combination of lever movements and tapping out the same bell signals. Maybe the same applies to our layouts. We change them frequently because we can whereas many weren't that lucky when it came to changing jobs.

 

Anyway, back to the plot . . . . .

 

I think I've finally got the track on the scenic section sorted but I'm beginning to doubt whether I've allocated enough space to the fiddle yard to get anywhere near being able to run a realistic assortment of - particularly freight - trains.

 

Can I run a full days' service or will I have to content myself with just running a (probably) abridged extract from it?

 

Will I be happy with that in the longer term and is there a realistic alternative?

 

Will I (finally) have to accept that I'm not only running my bit of railway - that on the scenic side - but I also have to frequently administer the bits of the rest of the railway system - the fiddle yard - that service my bit of the system?

[The Stationmaster]

Will I (finally) have to accept that I'm not only running my bit of railway - that on the scenic side - but I also have to frequently administer the bits of the rest of the railway system - the fiddle yard - that service my bit of the system?

I think that to fully exercise your ideas on freight movement you might well have to become something of a 'fiddle yard server' - although I would think basically setting it up for the day in terms of wagons.  That might suggest possible use on one road of a cassette system?

[Ray H]

Thanks again Mike. You're certainly right when it comes to setting things up. There may be one or more real-time lulls in the schedule that provide that opportunity.

 

I think that I have space for a forty inch cassette if I add a trailing point to the innermost fiddle yard siding at the garage door end and connecting the cassette to the heel of the (additional) point. It looks as though I can do this with the access flap up or down.

 

I'm not sure how I could encompass cassettes on the outer track as there's no easy access to that side of the fiddle yard - I don't think I'd be flavour of the month if I knocked a hole through the garage into the hall stairwell (or downstairs loo) so that I could change cassettes!

 

One does question whether trying to operate a layout prototypically is generally compatible with a continuous run or even how critical it is to be able to allow trains to move in opposite directions at the same end of the fiddle yard simultaneously.

 

I recognise the value of being able to let trains tail chase for running in and as a distraction whilst you partake of either quiet reflection or a cuppa but do I need to do so on both roads simultaneously? What if I don't?

 

I could bring the two running lines together at each entrance to the fiddle yard and fan the sidings out from that single "point". Furthermore, with the possible exception of one siding which is connected to both ends the rest could be terminal sidings. I could leave all the sidings as through tracks but I think I'd feel happier if there was something other than another train to pile into if I wasn't quick enough to stop a train as it enters an occupied siding.

 

I can revert to eight sidings (including the through track) and set up seven trains ready to depart at each end of the fiddle yard. I want to leave one siding free at each end so that I have an empty siding for the first arriving train.

 

I'm then able to run at least fourteen trains (and a few more if I use DMUs) before I need to interject and set things up again. Trains could run in any order - which isn't quite so easy with two trains on every siding. I could put the trains that need less re-marshalling in the sidings nearest to the garage wall, furthest from the operator.

 

I could swap a train over from each end of the fiddle yard at one end only by connecting a cassette to the through siding via a trailing point as mentioned above.

[Andrew P]

Sounding good now Ray, and the more variety of trains available the more you'll enjoy it.

[Ray H]

I did wonder how you were planning to operate your fiddle yard Andy.

 

Are you "happy" to let the same trains generally always run the same way and/or keep re-marshalling trains in the fiddle yard?

 

I think Mike has a large enough storage area to vary the trains he runs on Dent although it does look to be a bit difficult to get to the tracks under the main layout unless he can slide a very long shelf out.

[Andrew P]

I did wonder how you were planning to operate your fiddle yard Andy.

 

Are you "happy" to let the same trains generally always run the same way and/or keep re-marshalling trains in the fiddle yard?

 

I think Mike has a large enough storage area to vary the trains he runs on Dent although it does look to be a bit difficult to get to the tracks under the main layout unless he can slide a very long shelf out.

Ray, I will have a Trailing point at each end as I think I drew on the plan I posted on here, so the up Train can have the Loco detached and a new one attached at the other end to return if required, that double the amount of Storage Yard Tacks in each direction.

[The Stationmaster]

There is a far more complicated (carpentry wise) answer Ray and that is to use a looped 8 configuration where you have a second level with gradients (possible problem) leading to/from it.  Any further ideas on that one please advise (me) as it's the way I'm thinking of heading.

 

But standing that aside the 'train storage' problem is a very real one on any layout unless you are running a small branch terminus with a very limited service.  If you have a through station trains which pass in one direction can legitimately come back in the other in many scenarios but that won't really do for freight working if you intend to run a realistic operation - even on a small scale.

[Ray H]

Ray, I will have a Trailing point at each end as I think I drew on the plan I posted on here, so the up Train can have the Loco detached and a new one attached at the other end to return if required, that double the amount of Storage Yard Tacks in each direction.

Thanks Andy they were on your plan, a plan that I shamelessly copied to get the maximum siding length - so many thanks for that.

 

I had similar in my original scheme until I reduced the radius of the approach curves and mistakenly thought that I wouldn't need to use the crossovers if I generally kept the same trains circulating in the same direction. I'd obviously left my realism hat at home!

 

I've since realised that repeatedly running the same (relatively) few trains in the same direction isn't going to keep my interest alive for too long and with the relatively limited space that I have I've little option but to resort to occasional re-marshalling of trains within the fiddle yard.

 

One of today's tasks in this great planning process is to see exactly how many interventions might be necessary and whether that number is acceptable (to me). Watch this space.

Edited January 4, 2015 by Ray H

[Ray H]

There is a far more complicated (carpentry wise) answer Ray and that is to use a looped 8 configuration where you have a second level with gradients (possible problem) leading to/from it.  Any further ideas on that one please advise (me) as it's the way I'm thinking of heading.

 

But standing that aside the 'train storage' problem is a very real one on any layout unless you are running a small branch terminus with a very limited service.  If you have a through station trains which pass in one direction can legitimately come back in the other in many scenarios but that won't really do for freight working if you intend to run a realistic operation - even on a small scale.

I can all but hear Gordon S (of Eastwood Town fame) saying "Don't do it", knowing his previous reluctance to use gradients. They're something I haven't tried.

 

I'm assuming that your idea is to have a larger range of hidden sidings under the scenic boards. That would present me with a problem as I have floor mounted cupboards below the junction station and wall mounted cupboards above. I'm therefore tight for space although re-location of the cupboards - intended for storage of stock boxes and the like - isn't necessarily something I'd rule out even if it isn't a job that I'd planned on doing.

 

Placing the fiddle yard under the station would have the added bonus of allowing a little more space for Buckingham station whilst also reducing the width of the boards on that side of the layout.

 

I may limit my detailed freight handling to the branch and the pick-up trains with the balance of stock randomly used to populate the through freights. That would go some way to reducing manhandling in the fiddle yard.

Edited January 4, 2015 by Ray H