Beginner, What can I do with 6' x 2'?

[Pacific231G]

1 hour ago, south_tyne said:

Yes I completely agree with that. It's a compromise between the number of baseboards, the corresponding number of joints and the arrangement of the points. Personally I think 100cm is a comfortable maximum for a baseboard, beyond that it becomes unwieldy. That does present something of a problem when modelling in 7mm scale! However the Peco setrack points are only around 40cm long and the regular Y-point is not too much longer, so it does mean you can get two back-to-back in my chosen 100cm. I am planning and tinkering around point templates at the moment, trying to come to a solution. I have an absolute maximum of around 300cm for my layout (ideally a little less though) and have been trying to test whether the piano line concept can be for into that kind of space. 

 

I'll have to dig out my GOG small layout books then. It's definitely not in the first one so it must be in the second. I will have to see if I can lay my hands on it. The first one includes the excellent Wild Swan Yard - I have often thought this could be amended and adapted into a piano line scheme with the additon of an extra point and siding to the fiddle yard. Incidently, just in case you didn't know, the Guild are currently preparing a third volume of plans and layouts; that's something to look forward to in the course. 

 

Enjoying this discussion but sorry if it has strayed a little from the original question. 

David

 

Hi David

I'm not sure that it has strayed because what is possible in 7mm/ft scale in nine and a half feet (so within your three metres) is comfortably possible in Titanius' six feet in OO. 

Goonhilly is in volume two but only includes the four points that make up the run round loop, the bay and the "main" line heading off stage to the cassette fiddle yard. By the time I saw it at Wycrail it had grown by eight inches in width and a bit longer at the right hand end to accomodate the goods yard.

[Titanius Anglesmith]

2 hours ago, south_tyne said:

 

 

Enjoying this discussion but sorry if it has strayed a little from the original question. 

David

 

 

No need to apologise, I'm enjoying the discussion 

[Pacific231G]

3 hours ago, Titanius Anglesmith said:

 

No need to apologise, I'm enjoying the discussion 

As closely as I can work them in Anyrail these are the plans for Goonhilly

The first is the plan as in the GOG's small layouts book (v2)

 

This is 8ft 6ins by 12 ins with the cassette sticking out 6 inches  to make the length nine foot. This does make the left hand headshunt rather short  for a full length coach. In reality I think the short sections of track 4 or 5 inches long between the crossover points  are slighty curved as the platform headshunt ends right in the lower left corner of the baseboard whicg makes the platform slightly wider.

Looking at all my photos of Goonhilly as it now is this plan is as close as I can get to it.

The bay has been lengthened to end at cut-back buffers up against the side scene and jiggled slightly to be closer to the wall that abuts the back scene.

Just to cover the whole layout here are some more of the photos I took of it at Wycrail in 2008

 

One thing that did strike me was that, though in plan the main line just nipping behind a retaining wall to go off-stage looks unnatural, with the footbridge to break it up you're just not conscious of that. (People have often commented that the S curve in Minories also looks wrong but again the bridge that covers the hinges in Cyril Freezer's oriignal plan effectively breaks it into two scenes which disguises that.)

Edited March 1, 2019 by Pacific231G

[south_tyne]

Thanks both! 

 

8 hours ago, Pacific231G said:

As closely as I can work them in Anyrail these are the plans for Goonhilly

The first is the plan as in the GOG's small layouts book (v2)

 

This is 8ft 6ins by 12 ins with the cassette sticking out 6 inches  to make the length nine foot. This does make the left hand headshunt rather short  for a full length coach. In reality I think the short sections of track 4 or 5 inches long between the crossover points  are slighty curved as the platform headshunt ends right in the lower left corner of the baseboard whicg makes the platform slightly wider.

Looking at all my photos of Goonhilly as it now is this plan is as close as I can get to it.

The bay has been lengthened to end at cut-back buffers up against the side scene and jiggled slightly to be closer to the wall that abuts the back scene.

Just to cover the whole layout here are some more of the photos I took of it at Wycrail in 2008

 

One thing that did strike me was that, though in plan the main line just nipping behind a retaining wall to go off-stage looks unnatural, with the footbridge to break it up you're just not conscious of that. (People have often commented that the S curve in Minories also looks wrong but again the bridge that covers the hinges in Cyril Freezer's oriignal plan effectively breaks it into two scenes which disguises that.)

 

Thanks for that extra detail, I plans and photographs. I really appreciate you taking the time to provide them. I thought I had a copy of Volume 2 but couldn't lay my hands on it when I looked tonight. 

 

That's an interesting variation with regard to the Goonhilly design. I see what you mean about the exit looking a little unatural but it's certainly something that could be addressed. The alteration to the layout was obviously made for a reason; presumably to aid operation and address the limitations you highlight. It does show what is possible in a reasonable space and it is a design that has lots of operational potential. I really like it! I would be tempted to stick to a freight only design, but really that is because that is where my focus lies, being interested in industrial railways. The original, more compact, design would work far better as a goods only scheme too. 

 

The layout I referenced from RM makes a similar adaption. As I said, with two exits to the fiddle yard to become an out and back junction station. It leads to a far more prototypical design. For copyright reasons I won't post an image of the plan but it's worth a look and I'll try and knock together a hand-drawn one and post it here!

 

This is definitely providing me with a lot of inspiration and hopefully it is helping other too! 

 

Thanks again Pacific231G 

[Pacific231G]

9 hours ago, south_tyne said:

Thanks both! 

 

 

Thanks for that extra detail, I plans and photographs. I really appreciate you taking the time to provide them. I thought I had a copy of Volume 2 but couldn't lay my hands on it when I looked tonight. 

 

That's an interesting variation with regard to the Goonhilly design. I see what you mean about the exit looking a little unatural but it's certainly something that could be addressed. The alteration to the layout was obviously made for a reason; presumably to aid operation and address the limitations you highlight. It does show what is possible in a reasonable space and it is a design that has lots of operational potential. I really like it! I would be tempted to stick to a freight only design, but really that is because that is where my focus lies, being interested in industrial railways. The original, more compact, design would work far better as a goods only scheme too. 

 

The layout I referenced from RM makes a similar adaption. As I said, with two exits to the fiddle yard to become an out and back junction station. It leads to a far more prototypical design. For copyright reasons I won't post an image of the plan but it's worth a look and I'll try and knock together a hand-drawn one and post it here!

 

This is definitely providing me with a lot of inspiration and hopefully it is helping other too! 

 

Thanks again Pacific231G 

Hui David

I'll PM you a scan of the relevant page.

The exit only looks unnatural on the plan. My point was that it  doesn't  look odd when you actually view the layout partly thanks to the foorbridge breaking up the scene. I can't post it because I think it's RM copyright but there was another layout based on the origional Piano Line in the February 1983 RM and that used a skew bridge at the exit point rather reminiscent of the Bristol Harbour Railway's entrance onto the quays . 

I've finally found a couple of photos of Tim Hills' La Planche-Port showing the exit to the fiddle yard and he handled it very effecitvely with a stairway descending from the " upper town" to the port district.   

 

These were taken at the Burgess Hill show in 2013 but Tim has done more work on the layout since then.

My  take on the original Piano Line Plan was to add one extra siding and lengthen it to six feet

The slight extra length enabled a five wagon train (which seems the right number for an essentally shunting layout)  with a smallish loco to be handled. This was based on four wheel Ep 3 European stock in H0; with 10 ft wheelbase British stock in 00 I think you could probably cut the length a bit or add a brakevan to the five wagons.

 

When I drew this I couldn't quite see how to avoid the point over the board split problem in order to divide it into two three by one boards but I think the answer is simply to cheat by shifting the entrance point a bit to the right  to clear the join and then have a short plug in extension to the fiddle yard (or use a cassette that overhangs a bit)  

 

 

[south_tyne]

22 hours ago, Pacific231G said:

Hui David

I'll PM you a scan of the relevant page.

The exit only looks unnatural on the plan. My point was that it  doesn't  look odd when you actually view the layout partly thanks to the foorbridge breaking up the scene. I can't post it because I think it's RM copyright but there was another layout based on the origional Piano Line in the February 1983 RM and that used a skew bridge at the exit point rather reminiscent of the Bristol Harbour Railway's entrance onto the quays . 

I've finally found a couple of photos of Tim Hills' La Planche-Port showing the exit to the fiddle yard and he handled it very effecitvely with a stairway descending from the " upper town" to the port district.   

 

These were taken at the Burgess Hill show in 2013 but Tim has done more work on the layout since then.

My  take on the original Piano Line Plan was to add one extra siding and lengthen it to six feet

The slight extra length enabled a five wagon train (which seems the right number for an essentally shunting layout)  with a smallish loco to be handled. This was based on four wheel Ep 3 European stock in H0; with 10 ft wheelbase British stock in 00 I think you could probably cut the length a bit or add a brakevan to the five wagons.

 

When I drew this I couldn't quite see how to avoid the point over the board split problem in order to divide it into two three by one boards but I think the answer is simply to cheat by shifting the entrance point a bit to the right  to clear the join and then have a short plug in extension to the fiddle yard (or use a cassette that overhangs a bit)  

 

 

 

That French layout looks excellent - thanks for sharing the photos!  

 

Seeing your plans is really useful. I think the location of the baseboard joints issue is something that is difficult to grapple with. It's useful to see the design with the stock indicated mind - helps to visualise the capacity of sidings and headshunt and put things into real life perspective. 

[Pacific231G]

On 19/02/2019 at 23:23, south_tyne said:

 

The good old small layout scrapbook website is always a good port of call. Sadly the website is now no longer updated - after Carl Arendt's passing it has never really been the same - but it still provides a wonderful resource for micro layouts. 

 

This issue includes descriptions of the inglenook, minories and piano line (amongst others): http://www.carendt.com/small-layout-scrapbook/page-61a-may-2007/

 

Should help to explain the concept of each. Hopefully useful !

 

Cheers,

David

 

Good to know it's still there but the person- it wasn't Carl- who wrote that article didn't actually bother to explain how those layout ideas worked and, though it's mentioned in the text, the plans of  J.A. Patmore's TT Larpool and Easington  layout (which is interesting)  doesn't appear, just a photo of a later narrow gauge TTn3  incarnation.  I was though very taken by Chris Krupa's Minbury Abbas and that track plan has definite potential. (I've worked an H0 version of it in 4ft x 1ft)   and Julian Andrews' Weston Road in 38 x 12 inches plus a short fiddle yard made terrific use of a very small space. 

(OK, it was me who wrote that article for Carl and we didn't want to pinch any photos or plans from RM)

I've got the Larpool and Easington articles. In TT3 (March 1967) its two boards were each 28x8 inches and used GEM 15" radius points

In 00 that equates roughly to 1m x 25cms (3ft 3in x 10in more or less). When scaled from 3 to 4 mm/ft, Peco Streamline small radius points are slightly longer than the GEM which changes the geometry a little but  I didn't want to use Setrack and it all still seems to fit. The ends of the exchange sidings at Larpool are under a road bridge and Prof. Patmore used a mirror to make it seem that they went off somewhere.

 

For transport, the two separate boards were bolted together to form a box and for operation were joined by a length of plain track. ( A bit like the N gauge Mahwah if you know that layout) It was the sort of layout you could carry on the train with controller and stock in another bag but even in 4mm scale would be fairly easy to transport

 

In similar vein though slightly larger was the "Potwell Mineral Railway" by  Mr. G.T.Porter that featured in MRN in August 1952 . A bit too long in OO for OP Titanius' six foot length and huge in O scale for South Tyne but still perhaps interesting.

 The eight foot by sixteen inch layout was built into a very neat cabinet with a pair of lids that opened to reveal it - not a bad idea even now.

Though I've divided it in the middle with a four foot long board for each station  I'm not sure that it wasn't built as a single piece. 

 

If you're familiar with the East Kent Railway you'll know that it's closely based on Shepherdswell to  Tilmanstone Colliery. It was operated by three clockwork locos (not the crude toy sort but Riemsdyk controlled mechanisms set for very slow running) though  Mr. Porter did write that he was planning to electrify it with stud contact.

 

 

Edited March 6, 2019 by Pacific231G

[Titanius Anglesmith]

Good afternoon All,

 

Although I find the Piano Line discussion very interesting, I'm still not convinced that it's what I want right now.  At least, not yet......

 

Until recently my sole knowledge of model railways was my late Dad's layout; a permanent, built-in behemoth.  It's come as a bit of a revelation that a layout can also be built across several modular boards and moved when necessary.  With that in mind, I think I can manage two scenic boards at 4' x 18" each.  That would however mean that the fiddle board would have to turn a right angle to form an "L".  With the extra length to play with I'm considering my original idea again, a two-track through station with goods yard, but operated like a BLT (i.e. it's the "other" end of a branch service).

 

I've knocked up these crude drawings of what I imagine, plus an attempt at Anyrail.  Essentially the two plans are the same, just with the direction of the sidings reversed.  I imagined ending the platforms being truncated at the left hand end to suggest something longer, perhaps using the passenger overbridge as a scenic break.  I can live with the crossover being modelled "mid" platform rather than off-scene where it belongs.  Please take the signalling with a pinch of salt, I was just getting carried away!  

 

Any thoughts please?  I am acutely aware that it's too easy to try and cram too much in.

 

 

 

Edited March 10, 2019 by Titanius Anglesmith

[Flying Pig]

If you move crossover 8 on plan B2 to the right and use a single slip to connect to the dead end of the siding as in plan B1, you'll have achieved peak Midland wayside station. 

 

[Titanius Anglesmith]

4 minutes ago, Flying Pig said:

If you move crossover 8 on plan B2 to the right and use a single slip to connect to the dead end of the siding as in plan B1, you'll have achieved peak Midland wayside station. 

 

 

Many thanks for your reply, Flying Pig. Funnily enough I tried that on anyrail this morning, for the exact reason of it being quintessentially Midland. Unfortunately though, even if the running line end of the crossover is at the very edge of the board, it still only leaves something like 6" of siding between the points. I'm very glad to see that I'm thinking on the right lines though!!

 

i have an extreme lack of confidence with Anyrail, and very little experience with model railways. So if anyone can create a similar plan with more elegance than my ham-fisted fumblings, I'd be most grateful!

[shortliner]

3 hours ago, Titanius Anglesmith said:

 

 

 

 

I've knocked up these crude drawings of what I imagine, plus an attempt at Anyrail.  Essentially the two plans are the same, just with the direction of the sidings reversed.  I imagined ending the platforms being truncated at the left hand end to suggest something longer, perhaps using the passenger overbridge as a scenic break.  I can live with the crossover being modelled "mid" platform rather than off-scene where it belongs.  Please take the signalling with a pinch of salt, I was just getting carried away!  

 

Any thoughts please?  I am acutely aware that it's too easy to try and cram too much in.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Just a small thought - as you suggest, add an overbridge at the left, but pt a mirror at the end of the track and you'll (apparently) extend your layout - just make sure that you get the mirror at a 90° angle to the track and it will go on into the distance - especially if you can get a front-silvered mirror.

[Collett]

Concerning the matter of cross overs for run 'round loops, the prototype had a couple of wheezes up their sleeve that could be very useful.  Moor Street station in Birmingham used a traverser to move locomotives between the platform lines, providing the same facility as a cross over but in a length not much longer than a locomotive.  Again with the GWR in Birmingham, Snow Hill station had a Sector Table at the end of a bay, switching loco's between lines without the length required for a  turnout + loco. 

Still in the West Midlands but LNWR this time, Harborne  Station had a small turntable at the end of the platform line.  https://www.warwickshirerailways.com/lms/harborne.htm is a little unclear whether this was 42' or 45' diameter, but whichever, you're not going to fit a locomotive release line and crossover turnout into 180mm, which is all a 45' turntable represents.  Also turning the tender locomotives would add to operating interest and viewer interest. 

Something like the Moor Street traverser or Snow Hill Sector Table would fit perfectly in a Minories layout's cramped urban station context - since that's what Moor Street and Snow Hill were.  http://www.disused-stations.org.uk/b/birmingham_snow_hill/ has some details of the traverser, I think I might have a copy of the Ransom & Rapier production drawings somewhere.

 

You might also try and locate some of Ian Futers' layout plans, I recall he had a 'Layout in a Week' article in Railway Modeller in the early '70's.  That had a six feet long scenic section, very basic with just four turnouts but possibly a good starting point for a first layout, I'll try and dig out the plan which was reproduced in the Railway Modeller a few years ago. 

 

Addendum:  Ian Futers' Ashfield layout can be found in the September 2012 Railway Modeller along with a copy of the original article published back in September 1972... when the magazine cost the princely sum of 18p!!!!!  I remember the plan's first appearance in RM, and my attempt to build it as a 'Layout in a Weekend' at the first show of the Keighley Model Railway Club.  The original Ashleigh plan is actually only 4'6"x1', but as noted it is rather basic with just four turnouts.   The Sept'12 RM is good value as it also contains Mr Futer's Fisherrow Yard layout and Paul Marshall-Potter's Albion Yard. 

 

BTW:  What is a "BLT" layout?  As with most TLA's the answer will no doubt be annoyingly obvious.

 

Anyway - best of luck finding your dream plan for Dad's Railway.

Edited March 11, 2019 by Collett
Added Information

[Harlequin]

20 hours ago, Titanius Anglesmith said:

Good afternoon All,

 

 

Any thoughts please?  I am acutely aware that it's too easy to try and cram too much in.

 

Hi,

I wonder if it’s worth modelling double track if the station could only be operated as single? Obviously the reason for double track is to allow traffic to pass unhindered but because the station is actually a terminus one train would always have to move across to the other track before another could approach. Thus the double track is only really in use by one train at a time - so more like a single track in reality... Does that make sense?

 

There’s a reason why people model termini as termini.

 

I notice that there’s very little room for the loco between the “buffers” and the crossover. If the station were modelled as a terminus (and I understand why you might be trying to avoid that!) then Collett's observations about prototype traversers and sector plates come into play but they don’t apply to through stations - unless you used a small off scene traverser on the left to avoid/replace the on scene loco release crossover, which could be quite clever!

 

Is the fiddle yard joined to the front of the 8ft boards or the end? I.e. is the total length 8ft or 9ft6in - 10ft? Have you thought about the curve needed to go around the corner?

Edited March 11, 2019 by Harlequin

[Titanius Anglesmith]

7 hours ago, Harlequin said:

Hi,

I wonder if it’s worth modelling double track if the station could only be operated as single? Obviously the reason for double track is to allow traffic to pass unhindered but because the station is actually a terminus one train would always have to move across to the other track before another could approach. Thus the double track is only really in use by one train at a time - so more like a single track in reality... Does that make sense?

 

There’s a reason why people model termini as termini.

 

I notice that there’s very little room for the loco between the “buffers” and the crossover. If the station were modelled as a terminus (and I understand why you might be trying to avoid that!) then Collett's observations about prototype traversers and sector plates come into play but they don’t apply to through stations - unless you used a small off scene traverser on the left to avoid/replace the on scene loco release crossover, which could be quite clever!

 

Is the fiddle yard joined to the front of the 8ft boards or the end? I.e. is the total length 8ft or 9ft6in - 10ft? Have you thought about the curve needed to go around the corner?

Hi Phil, thank you for your reply.  Sorry I can't figure out how to split the quote up, so......

 

Thus the double track is only really in use by one train at a time - so more like a single track in reality... Does that make sense?

 

Perfect sense.  But how many end to end layouts are operated as one-engine-in-steam, even multi-platform termini like Minories?  I don't really see that as an affront to reality.  My local station* on the LT&SR was built as double track but initially only saw a 1hr 30min frequency.  The line's terminus at Shoeburyness was built with two platforms, but only one was generally used (it now has three!).  Conversely, I wonder how many BLT layouts are pictured with a train in the platform, another in the bay, and a third shunting the yard...?

 

I notice that there’s very little room for the loco between the “buffers” and the crossover.

 

Noted, should be easy enough to correct.  Or use the off-scene traverser as also suggested.

 

Is the fiddle yard joined to the front of the 8ft boards or the end? I.e. is the total length 8ft or 9ft6in - 10ft? Have you thought about the curve needed to go around the corner?

 

Sorry I didn't put that very clearly.  Joined to the end, to make 10ft (the fiddle board can be a little wider than the scenic boards that way round).  I think a 2nd radius curve will just fit? 

 

*Curiously enough, the layouts I proposed earlier are very similar to my local station (before '60s rationalisation), even though I never meant them to be.  I guess it goes to show that when we design a layout to achieve certain aims, we shouldn't be surprised if we reach the same conclusions that the real railway did

[Titanius Anglesmith]

19 hours ago, shortliner said:

 

Just a small thought - as you suggest, add an overbridge at the left, but pt a mirror at the end of the track and you'll (apparently) extend your layout - just make sure that you get the mirror at a 90° angle to the track and it will go on into the distance - especially if you can get a front-silvered mirror.

 

That's a very clever idea   I've seen it used to great effect in gardens, and even in Ally Pally.  Might give the loco driver a bit of a shock as he enters the platform though

[Flying Pig]

20 hours ago, Titanius Anglesmith said:

 

Many thanks for your reply, Flying Pig. Funnily enough I tried that on anyrail this morning, for the exact reason of it being quintessentially Midland. Unfortunately though, even if the running line end of the crossover is at the very edge of the board, it still only leaves something like 6" of siding between the points. I'm very glad to see that I'm thinking on the right lines though!!

 

i have an extreme lack of confidence with Anyrail, and very little experience with model railways. So if anyone can create a similar plan with more elegance than my ham-fisted fumblings, I'd be most grateful!

 

Sorry , should have looked at your (perfectly clear BTW) Anyrail plans. To be honest I think you will struggle to fit a double track passing station and goods yard into the space you have. Even if you treat Plan B2 as a bitsa and continue the sidings offscene, the platform is very short (and I think crossover 7 should probably be in advance - i.e. to the left - of starter 13, which consumes even more length) and the result will probably look cramped.

 

 

[Harlequin]

Minories allows for more simultaneous movements whereas with your current designs passenger trains have to enter Platform 2 and have to cross over and either proceed outbound or set back into Platform 1 before anything else can enter Platform 2. (Assuming that  you are not treating the line 3rd down from the top as a bay platform in plan B1.)

 

In fact Platform 1 is a bit of a white elephant because you are avoiding facing crossovers - correct for double track but not very helpful for a terminus.

 

Edited March 11, 2019 by Harlequin

[Titanius Anglesmith]

38 minutes ago, Flying Pig said:

 

Sorry , should have looked at your (perfectly clear BTW) Anyrail plans. To be honest I think you will struggle to fit a double track passing station and goods yard into the space you have. Even if you treat Plan B2 as a bitsa and continue the sidings offscene, the platform is very short (and I think crossover 7 should probably be in advance - i.e. to the left - of starter 13, which consumes even more length) and the result will probably look cramped.

 

 

 

Thanks Flying Pig. Just to be clear, I never expected to model the whole platform, just enough to run a branch train or the local goods into. However if you still think it's too short to do anything useful with then I'll go back to the drawing board. 

 

With regards to the crossover, I don't think it was that uncommon to see it in between the platforms. It would have to be protected by the home though instead of the starter. It would of course be towards the end of the platform not the middle. I'll see if I can find a prototypical example before I stick my neck out on that though. 

 

32 minutes ago, Harlequin said:

Minories allows for more simultaneous movements whereas with your current designs trains have to enter platform 2 or the goods yard and have to cross over and set back into Platform 1 before anything else can enter.

 

Platform 1 is a bit of a white elephant because you are avoiding facing crossovers - correct for double track but not very helpful for a terminus.

 

 

Yes Minories allows for simultaneous movements, but my point was how often is it actually operated like that, apart from at exhibitions with several operators?

 

I agree that Pl1 is superfluous in a modelling sense as I can't run a "through" train through it. However I cite KNP's Encombe Town as precedent!  

 

 

 

Edited March 11, 2019 by Titanius Anglesmith

[mdvle]

12 hours ago, Collett said:

BTW:  What is a "BLT" layout?  As with most TLA's the answer will no doubt be annoyingly obvious.

 

Branch Line Terminus

[Collett]

18 hours ago, mdvle said:

 

Branch Line Terminus

 

Ah, of course, thank you.  I couldn't get past the sandwich - Bacon, Lettuce,Tomato.

Edited March 12, 2019 by Collett
Added thank you

[Zomboid]

The real railway is awash with TLAs which are often not explained because "everyone understands".

 

No reason why models should be any different.

 

We could always debate whether they're actually TLAs or TLIs (initialisations, because they're pronounced Tee Ell Eh rather than Tla), but that would be wildly OT.

[Flying Pig]

On 11/03/2019 at 11:58, Titanius Anglesmith said:

Thanks Flying Pig. Just to be clear, I never expected to model the whole platform, just enough to run a branch train or the local goods into

 

Ok, that sounds sensible. If you place a station building at the left hand end of the layout as a view blocker, you can omit the left hand crossover and use a short traverser or cassette for loco release, hidden behind the building.  Trains can then run right up to the end of the layout on arrival and a short passenger train shouldn't look too cramped in the 4 feet of platform you've shown as actually modelled.

 

I'd guess that passenger trains will need to shunt to depart, as the layout isn't locked and signalled for departures from the lower platform. You could always resignal, but it would only reduce the play value.  There won't be that many trains - just the branch service, or a reduced passenger service to a the last station on a route that has been truncated for some reason. I think the latter scenario is better as it gives a reason for the goods to reverse too and not run through to the next large yard. 

 

Below are a couple of ideas based on your plan B2.  The station building is a view blocker on the left and on the right, the end of a large goods shed on a loop is used. Both sidings continue into the fiddle yard - I don't know how or if that will play with your need to turn through 90°. I've used large radius points on the Anyrail plan, so the new bullhead range would fit. I've also extended the trap siding to form a short dock of some sort - quite a common Midland feature.

 

To be honest, while this would probably make a convincing scene as a slice of a wayside station, it provides only about the same operating potential as a simple branch terminus and probably less conveniently.

 

 

 

[mdvle]

8 hours ago, Collett said:

 

Ah, of course, thank you.  I couldn't get past the sandwich - Bacon, Lettuce,Tomato.

 

So perhaps a small branch line terminus, entering the layout through a tunnel.  On the hillside above the tunnel are some fields/greenhouses growing tomatoes and lettuce.

 

In the station area, 2 industries.  A bakery making bread, receiving flour by rail, and a bacon factory of some sort shipping bacon out by rail and perhaps pigs in by rail.

 

And of course a little cafe, either next to the station or as part of the station, with world famous BLT sandwiches...

[mdvle]

On 11/03/2019 at 07:58, Titanius Anglesmith said:

 

Thanks Flying Pig. Just to be clear, I never expected to model the whole platform, just enough to run a branch train or the local goods into. However if you still think it's too short to do anything useful with then I'll go back to the drawing board.

 

Don't have time to look at the exact sizes but a layout similar to what you are thinking of has recently appeared in the Layout section that you may want to look at where only part of the platform is included

 

 

[Zomboid]

4 hours ago, Flying Pig said:

To be honest, while this would probably make a convincing scene as a slice of a wayside station, it provides only about the same operating potential as a simple branch terminus and probably less conveniently.

 

 

 

See, I interpret that as "all the fun of a BLT, without being a cliché".

Edited March 12, 2019 by Zomboid