Design Ideas welcome

[mdvle]

It wasn't about his plan, but rather his lessons learned.

 

Looking at the drawing provided by Harlequin above and we see that even as it currently is drawn there is a 24 inch reach to get to the farthest track along the bottom, and at the bottom right when it curves that has gone to 33 inches.

 

Add in your desired benchwork height (which I think is a good height), consider that you will be reaching across scenery/structures/rolling stock, and my opinion is that adding scenery because you don't want "a big hole in the middle" is something you may want to reconsider.  Hence the link, demonstrating from someone who went ahead and built a layout with long reaches and came to regret it.

[Tallpaul69]

5 hours ago, mdvle said:

It wasn't about his plan, but rather his lessons learned.

 

Looking at the drawing provided by Harlequin above and we see that even as it currently is drawn there is a 24 inch reach to get to the farthest track along the bottom, and at the bottom right when it curves that has gone to 33 inches.

 

Add in your desired benchwork height (which I think is a good height), consider that you will be reaching across scenery/structures/rolling stock, and my opinion is that adding scenery because you don't want "a big hole in the middle" is something you may want to reconsider.  Hence the link, demonstrating from someone who went ahead and built a layout with long reaches and came to regret it.

Hi there,

I now understand why you highlighted this thread. I agree that access is important but, if a layout is well designed and constructed then the need for access to some areas is reduced.

 

Taking the two areas in Phil's first draft that you highlighted, you may not have realised that the track along the bottom is on a rising gradient which helps access. Phil has already said that he intends to rework the pair of sidings that make the reach to the bottom right corner so large. So we will see what he comes up with before panicking about the reach.

 

If you look at my Partly Maidenhead thread you will see that I have put in access to three of the corners of that plan, so access is on my agenda!

 

Items such as steps, provided they are safe, can help with access, and there  are methods such as removable scenery boards which if properly planned and with a proper storage area for them while removed, can help with emergency access.

 

Best regards

Paul

[Tallpaul69]

Good Afternoon to Phil, and all the others contributing to or watching this thread.

 

I have been thinking about the branch and realised my idea of singling it and turning the second line into sidings at each end needs some refinement:-

 

Because of the branch being inclined, the sidings parallel to it need to be flat as they will not always have a loco at the head of the stock to stop it running away.

So I think the carriage siding at the junction end should be on the inside rather than the outside of the branch track so that it can be level with the branch rising behind it.

At the junction of the siding with the branch with the branch, there needs to be a short length of single track and then a point to allow the retention of the double junction to the main line. to allow access to/from the branch and the siding from both the up and the down mains.

At the terminus sidings end of the branch things need to be the other way round with the siding outside the branch single track so that it can be level, and the branch drop away from the siding.

In the corner of the layout where the branch curves round the track could be 2ft 6ins radius as it will be hidden by some houses, which may only be able to be half profile, and some trees .

Space for the up loop could be helped by using a retaining wall against the branch track and behind the houses referred to above.

 

Hope the above makes sense?

 

Best regards

Paul

[Harlequin]

Hi Paul,

 

Yes, I'd already realised that the carriage sidings wouldn't work as previously conceived.

 

It's really difficult to squeeze all of this stuff in while satisfying all the major requirements - but that's the fascination of it, of course!

 

Points for carriage sidings mean smaller radius curve for branch line (it would have to go below 2ft6 on my current drawing) and it means that the incline is pushed further along, so the clearance further up is reduced.

 

If the carriage siding is on the level then, as you say, a retaining wall is needed between it and the branch and that needs space on the plan, so then the carriage siding gets perilously close to the up loop (which I have manged to fit in by shuffling other things around).

 

Etc, etc...

 

If there was more storage at the terminus would that compensate for not having carriage sidings?

 

The branch junction currently looks like this (please ignore the slight discontinuity):

 

I will post a revised drawing as soon as I can resolve the remaining issues.

[The Johnster]

The facing single slip would, if it had existed, almost certainly have been replaced by a ladder crossover of normal turnouts by your 1992 start of period.  This will eat space, but may allow you to use curved points to regain some!

[Tallpaul69]

4 hours ago, Harlequin said:

Hi Paul,

 

Yes, I'd already realised that the carriage sidings wouldn't work as previously conceived.

 

It's really difficult to squeeze all of this stuff in while satisfying all the major requirements - but that's the fascination of it, of course!

 

Points for carriage sidings mean smaller radius curve for branch line (it would have to go below 2ft6 on my current drawing) and it means that the incline is pushed further along, so the clearance further up is reduced.

 

If the carriage siding is on the level then, as you say, a retaining wall is needed between it and the branch and that needs space on the plan, so then the carriage siding gets perilously close to the up loop (which I have manged to fit in by shuffling other things around).

 

Etc, etc...

 

If there was more storage at the terminus would that compensate for not having carriage sidings?

 

The branch junction currently looks like this (please ignore the slight discontinuity):

 

I will post a revised drawing as soon as I can resolve the remaining issues.

Hi Phil,

The carriage siding is for the station which is not modelled but beyond the road(?) bridge.

One set of carriages is held there overnight for a  6.00am  suburban train to London, and later in the day it stores various passenger trains that have come down the branch to the station. There is a particularly involved routine where a single class 121 or 122 with a trailer arrives from Slough in the morning and takes a trip up the branch. On its return it puts its trailer into the siding, picks up a parcels van, and takes another trip up the branch. It returns later with a different parcels van, sidings that van, and picks up its trailer. It then takes further trips up and down the branch . Finally in the late afternoon it comes down the branch and returns to Slough.

 

I understand the problem. The carriage siding need not be long, it just needs to hold three 57ft suburban coaches and a prairie tank loco.

 

From your plan above, I assume that you are moving the junction further round towards the left end of the fiddle yard to give more space further to the right. This seems a good idea to me!

I expected to use Hall 4-6-0 for  two of the long distance freights that use the branch. I can probably get away with substituting 61xx large prairies, as used on the passenger turns on the branch, but I am not sure that they will take tighter curves than the Halls. There are other possibilities, but they are all six coupled tanks or tender locos such as 43xx 2-6-0s.

 

In reality this branch was a red route, so did see Castles, black 5s, and B1s on diversions or excursions, but the loss of these is no problem!

 

Thanks for all your efforts,

 

Best regards

Paul 

[Tallpaul69]

3 hours ago, The Johnster said:

The facing single slip would, if it had existed, almost certainly have been replaced by a ladder crossover of normal turnouts by your 1992 start of period.  This will eat space, but may allow you to use curved points to regain some!

Hi there,

I accept that trying to model multiple periods means that there have to be compromises somewhere as the real infrastructure changed over time. My intention is to cover the sidings except the loops with removable covers as the sidings disappeared in the early 70s, so the loops would have only been used for lay byes by 1992. 

So we will see if your idea helps Phil in the planning!

 

Best regards

Paul.  

[Harlequin]

Hi Paul,

 

Here's Version 2, then!

 

 

I won't spend too much time describing the changes and compromises because you can see most of the details in the drawings but I'll just point out the important features:

• The main line curves in a lovely organic way through the scenic area.
• Goods yard with up loop, down loop, suitable crossovers and further loops to allow vans and wagons to be handled sensibly (I hope!) Taking details from Maidenhead.
• Carriage siding at bottom of single track branch line (about 1.15m long). Sticking with 1 in 50 gradient means that branch terminus is now 110mm above main level, allowing for transitions from grade to level at each end.
• 4 simple storage roads (two with crossover for run round) at branch terminus. To keep construction simple no kickback carriage siding at terminus.
• The main fiddle yard loops are slightly shorter than the previous design. The longest is ~3.8m the shortest (Down main) is ~2.7m.
• I managed to fit two crossovers between the fiddle yard loops and the scenic main line on the right hand side. So Down traffic can enter any loop and Up traffic can leave from any loop on that side.
• On the left hand side, I have retained the facing crossover hidden in the branch junction but I couldn't fit in a trailing crossover without seriously reducing the loop lengths. So on that side of the layout Up traffic can enter any loop (via the facing crossover) but Down traffic can only leave from the Down loops unless you allow Up traffic to travel in the wrong direction on the Up line and cross to the Down line using the goods crossover.
• The scenic elements are up to you, of course. My labels are just suggestions to give some flavour.
• Remember that you need room for controls, seating, visitors, maybe a small worktable, etc., etc. in the operating well. So although it might look generous now it could become cramped very quickly and it's probably not wise to reduce the size of the well any further.

 

A word of caution: The design makes heavy use of the Peco curved points (green) to maximise the lengths of loops and sidings and to open out the curve radii as much as possible but some people have reported derailment problems when propelling stock over them so that needs to be investigated further. Hopefully, good track laying will minimise the problem.

 

I hope this is useful!

 

P.S. I have obtained a copy of the Hornby plan that you used for your original sketch and I can now see where the unrealistic curves, that worried everyone so much, came from! I think the Hornby plan is flawed, even at N gauge.

 

P.P.S. Have you got a name for this layout that I could put on the drawing?

 

Edited March 9, 2019 by Harlequin

[Tallpaul69]

4 hours ago, Harlequin said:

Hi Paul,

 

Here's Version 2, then!

 

 

I won't spend too much time describing the changes and compromises because you can see most of the details in the drawings but I'll just point out the important features:

• The main line curves in a lovely organic way through the scenic area.
• Goods yard with up loop, down loop, suitable crossovers and further loops to allow vans and wagons to be handled sensibly (I hope!) Taking details from Maidenhead.
• Carriage siding at bottom of single track branch line (about 1.15m long). Sticking with 1 in 50 gradient means that branch terminus is now 110mm above main level, allowing for transitions from grade to level at each end.
• 4 simple storage roads (two with crossover for run round) at branch terminus. To keep construction simple no kickback carriage siding at terminus.
• The main fiddle yard loops are slightly shorter than the previous design. The longest is ~3.8m the shortest (Down main) is ~2.7m.
• I managed to fit two crossovers between the fiddle yard loops and the scenic main line on the right hand side. So Down traffic can enter any loop and Up traffic can leave from any loop on that side.
• On the left hand side, I have retained the facing crossover hidden in the branch junction but I couldn't fit in a trailing crossover without seriously reducing the loop lengths. So on that side of the layout Up traffic can enter any loop (via the facing crossover) but Down traffic can only leave from the Down loops unless you allow Up traffic to travel in the wrong direction on the Up line and cross to the Down line using the goods crossover.
• The scenic elements are up to you, of course. My labels are just suggestions to give some flavour.
• Remember that you need room for controls, seating, visitors, maybe a small worktable, etc., etc. in the operating well. So although it might look generous now it could become cramped very quickly and it's probably not wise to reduce the size of the well any further.

 

A word of caution: The design makes heavy use of the Peco curved points (green) to maximise the lengths of loops and sidings and to open out the curve radii as much as possible but some people have reported derailment problems when propelling stock over them so that needs to be investigated further. Hopefully, good track laying will minimise the problem.

 

I hope this is useful!

 

P.S. I have obtained a copy of the Hornby plan that you used for your original sketch and I can now see where the unrealistic curves, that worried everyone so much, came from! I think the Hornby plan is flawed, even at N gauge.

 

P.P.S. Have you got a name for this layout that I could put on the drawing?

 

Thanks for all your hard work Phil,

I will spend some time digesting this and looking at the timetable possibilities, but on first impressions it looks good!.

 

The yard is a lot better now, I was worried that we might end up with a single ended goods shed, which would not have been right.

 

The only train that comes to mind as having to run wrong road is the morning parcels from Reading, which reverses to go up the branch (to High Wycombe). This arrives in the up loop, splits off/ picks up some vans and its final move before leaving would be for the loco to run round, and couple to the rear. It would then push the stock out of the up loop and up the up line under the bridge, and pause clear of the branch up points. It would then use the branch up line connection to run wrong road onto the branch.

 

In real life this move was done by pulling the stock into the branch platform (which was a through line), and running round via the relief lines to reach the rear of the stock and then depart up the branch.  I am sure the GWR purists will quote a load of rules to us that prevent my above set of moves, but better to compromise than loose this particular train from the timetable!

 

I  understand why the kick back siding at the high level had to go, I just need to look closely at what needs to be stored there and when!

 

Re the curved points I thought the problems had been with the Hornby ones, but doubtless other contributors will put us right on this point.

 

On a name, I will kick around the adjectives that could be added to Maidenhead, and let you know.

 

Once again, many thanks for delivering on the challenge,

Best regards

Paul

[Tallpaul69]

21 hours ago, Tallpaul69 said:

Thanks for all your hard work Phil,

I will spend some time digesting this and looking at the timetable possibilities, but on first impressions it looks good!.

 

The yard is a lot better now, I was worried that we might end up with a single ended goods shed, which would not have been right.

 

The only train that comes to mind as having to run wrong road is the morning parcels from Reading, which reverses to go up the branch (to High Wycombe). This arrives in the up loop, splits off/ picks up some vans and its final move before leaving would be for the loco to run round, and couple to the rear. It would then push the stock out of the up loop and up the up line under the bridge, and pause clear of the branch up points. It would then use the branch up line connection to run wrong road onto the branch.

 

In real life this move was done by pulling the stock into the branch platform (which was a through line), and running round via the relief lines to reach the rear of the stock and then depart up the branch.  I am sure the GWR purists will quote a load of rules to us that prevent my above set of moves, but better to compromise than loose this particular train from the timetable!

 

I  understand why the kick back siding at the high level had to go, I just need to look closely at what needs to be stored there and when!

 

Re the curved points I thought the problems had been with the Hornby ones, but doubtless other contributors will put us right on this point.

 

On a name, I will kick around the adjectives that could be added to Maidenhead, and let you know.

 

Once again, many thanks for delivering on the challenge,

Best regards

Paul

Afternoon Phil, and everyone following this thread,

 

Having spent some time with this plan and the current draft  of my timetable, I think the scenic side track layout is great.

 

However, I think the fiddle yards need a little tweaking:-

 

I think the high level terminus layout needs a little work:-

Firstly the crossover needs moving to the right. I can tell you to what position if you can post me the lengths of the 4 sidings, so I can finalise what to hold where?

Secondly, While appreciating why you left out the carriage siding, I could use a short kickback, just to hold one bogie parcels van and a shunting engine (not coupled together).

 

Regarding the main fiddle yard:-

1) Could the high level terminus be supported off the wall (it is a shelf?) to leave space for an additional through loop in the centre of the yard? If so, I would use it as a reversible loop to hold two DMUs, one a 4 car (3 car+ 1 car), the other a 3 car. So I would like the left hand end to connect into the down main, and the right hand end into the up loops.

2) The loops/sidings need some development because unlike " Partly Maidenhead" where the branch was a self contained circuit, here the branch is single ended, so the trains starting at the high level need somewhere to run to unless they are terminating at Maidenhead.

So I suggest the stock transfer/ maintenance siding connects at the left hand end rather than the right hand end, has a second track with a cross over, to provide a run round loop, with two long sidings off the right hand end. Somewhat similar to the two sidings to the wall side of the high level terminus, but the other way round.

3) In a similar way to "Partly Maidenhead" could there be a few short loco holding sidings in the top left and top right corners , to hold locos for use when trains  reverse?

 

Regarding a name, I think either "Maidenhead Yard" or "Lower Thames Yard" might be appropriate.  The later has the benefit of being less specific and leaving the layout less open to having the compromises highlighted.

 

I am still to find details of the points raised a while ago about the Peco and Hornby curved points. So I may raise a query in one of the other forums and see what folks have to say!

 

Thanks again,

Best regards

Paul

[Harlequin]

Hi Paul,

 

I can move the terminus crossover. I put it where it is simply to maximise the length of the run round.

The terminus sidings (ignoring the crossover points and ignoring clearances at the ladder) are, from the top:

2.56m

2.32m

2.08m

2.08m

 

I can easily draw a carriage siding at the terminus but I was worried about fiddly construction. What about a kickback off the bottom 2.08m siding, in the currently unused space on the main high-level board?

 

1. I imagined a ply I beam construction for the the upper board: strong, rigid and possibly self supporting if screwed to the wall, but I was worried about giving enough clearance to get hands under it to access stock on the three storage loops below it. If the top board was only cantilevered the ribs under the deck might have to be quite deep leaving very little clearance below. So I left space for a few widely spaced supports for insurance! If you can avoid the supports, then yes, that space is available for another loop - but it needs to be carefully thought about because the two loops either side are currently the longest ones and it won't be easy to add in connecting points on the curves meaning that the usable lengths of those loops will become much shorter.

 

2. I'll try to do something for branch traffic along the lines you suggest. (The current stock transfer track came almost for free because of the lie of the curves at the right hand side.)

 

3. Yes, the two top corners are available for some short sidings but I didn't add any yet because they would all be on the Up line. Ideally you want some on the Down side too or some way to easily crossover to access the Up loco sidings. I'm also slightly worried about more pointwork on the Up main in less accessible positions. Let me know what you think.

 

"Lower Thames Yard" sounds good.

 

If anyone else has good ideas for meeting Paul's requirements please post. There's a danger we might be getting locked into one design too early.

 

P.S. Paul: Do you intend to motorise the points in the upper fiddle yard? If so we need to think about how/where they would be mounted without impinging on the tracks below.

Edited March 11, 2019 by Harlequin

[Tallpaul69]

5 hours ago, Harlequin said:

Hi Paul,

 

I can move the terminus crossover. I put it where it is simply to maximise the length of the run round.

The terminus sidings (ignoring the crossover points and ignoring clearances at the ladder) are, from the top:

2.56m

2.32m

2.08m

2.08m

 

I can easily draw a carriage siding at the terminus but I was worried about fiddly construction. What about a kickback off the bottom 2.08m siding, in the currently unused space on the main high-level board?

 

1. I imagined a ply I beam construction for the the upper board: strong, rigid and possibly self supporting if screwed to the wall, but I was worried about giving enough clearance to get hands under it to access stock on the three storage loops below it. If the top board was only cantilevered the ribs under the deck might have to be quite deep leaving very little clearance below. So I left space for a few widely spaced supports for insurance! If you can avoid the supports, then yes, that space is available for another loop - but it needs to be carefully thought about because the two loops either side are currently the longest ones and it won't be easy to add in connecting points on the curves meaning that the usable lengths of those loops will become much shorter.

 

2. I'll try to do something for branch traffic along the lines you suggest. (The current stock transfer track came almost for free because of the lie of the curves at the right hand side.)

 

3. Yes, the two top corners are available for some short sidings but I didn't add any yet because they would all be on the Up line. Ideally you want some on the Down side too or some way to easily crossover to access the Up loco sidings. I'm also slightly worried about more pointwork on the Up main in less accessible positions. Let me know what you think.

 

"Lower Thames Yard" sounds good.

 

If anyone else has good ideas for meeting Paul's requirements please post. There's a danger we might be getting locked into one design too early.

 

P.S. Paul: Do you intend to motorise the points in the upper fiddle yard? If so we need to think about how/where they would be mounted without impinging on the tracks below.

Thanks Phil,

 

Answering your points:-

I didn't explain myself very well, the kickback you suggest is what I was trying to suggest!

 

1) I understand your thinking. Another way round the supports along the front of the terminus board might be at the positions you suggest for the supports to have beams running under the terminus board out across the full width of the main fiddle yards ending in vertical members fixed to the edge of the main boards?

 

I think we need some help from the baseboard construction experts on the forums. If we don't get a response on this in a couple of days I will post a separate thread on the baseboard forum and hopefully get some help that way?

 

I take your point about the points and the potential reduction of the loop length. I need to do some more detailed fitting of the trains into the loops.

 

2) I will leave the baseboard level branch yard with you. It might be that this can also provide the DMU loop, by combining two functions, so your existing right hand loop end would stay, with a connection at the left hand end and a run round  plus sidings.

If we can get rid of the terminus board supports, might moving the loops over to make more space at the front of the baseboard create enough space for the DMU loop and the branch lower yard as I suggest above? 

 

3) I suggest we leave the loco sidings on the "to do" list for the moment until we have finalised everything else. I need to think about how I want the baseboards just inside the door to be. I quite like the free space I had there on "Partly Maidenhead", which also reduced the distance to duck under!

 

"Lower Thames Yard" it is then!

 

Re the points on the terminus board:- as this will not be scenic I was thinking in terms of surface mounting point motors.

 

Good idea asking others to pitch in, I'm surprised no one has, apart from one or two comments. As you say, there is more than one way to do most things, and there is always a danger in getting tunnel vision.

 

Best regards

Paul

[Harlequin]

Hi Paul,

 

Here are some updated drawings covering the recent discussion points:

 

 

Kickback carriage siding on high level.

Branch line sidings on main level. Using down main to provide another loop. (Nothing need to move to fit the new sidings in.)

I think the duck-under is actually thinner than was shown on Partly Maidenhead - and the base boards give you somewhere to put down your tea and sandwiches!

 

Here's the sort of thing I was thinking of for the high-level board construction. An H section structure made of 9mm ply with ribs about every 300mm made up as units. These are then fixed to the wall above the main baseboard. Supporting posts could be added at the front if needed at, say, 600mm centres.

Edited March 11, 2019 by Harlequin

[Tallpaul69]

Thanks for the kickback on the high level Phil, trouble is, I now need one on the branch yard on the low level!

 

I may be a bit quiet until after the week end , there are a few things going on with the domestic and family fronts.

 

Thanks for your continued efforts,

 

Best regards

Paul

[Tallpaul69]

On ‎12‎/‎03‎/‎2019 at 15:30, Tallpaul69 said:

Thanks for the kickback on the high level Phil, trouble is, I now need one on the branch yard on the low level!

 

I may be a bit quiet until after the week end , there are a few things going on with the domestic and family fronts.

 

Thanks for your continued efforts,

 

Best regards

Paul

Hello Phil,

Managed to do a little work on the plans:-

The branch yard at baseboard level, needs capacity for an additional train.

I think we might need to take the fiddle yard side of the baseboards out to 2ft wide to get in another siding to the branch yard, then run the kickback off the new siding. The new siding would need to hold a 61xx tank plus 3 suburban coaches plus another 61xx getting out of the kickback. 

 

Alternatively, the current outside siding needs to be longer to take a 61xx tank + 3 suburban coaches and a second train of a 56xx 0-6-2 tank and 10 standard length wagons? I guess this means a corner piece of baseboard at the right hand side?

 

On the subject of the supports for the terminus board, there will be good room for those near the room door. If we fit in the DMU loop as two sidings buffer ends either side of another support, it is just the right hand end of the terminus board without a support.

I know you said that a DMU siding would shorten the loop it feeds off, can you work out the length that the existing loop would then be and the lengths of the then 2 DMU sidings?

 

Many thanks

Paul 

[Harlequin]

Hi Paul,

 

I've added grid references around the outside of the design for added clarity.

 

I've pushed the baseboard out to 2ft wide and added the extra branch siding with two kickback sidings because the space was available. In fact it might be a good idea to only use the inner kickback siding (the one that terminates at D2) to give you a little bit of clear bench space.

 

Branch storage 4 is 1.1m long.

 

I'm sure that the terminus board could be entirely cantilevered off the wall (I'll show you my idea later) so I don't think any support legs would be needed anywhere from A1 to J1. So the area A1-A3 and B1 is available for a trailing set of sidings off the Up line if you want and the space for supports from D1 to J1 is free for your DMU sidings. I've shown where the points for a middle "DMU" loop could be taken off the existing curves, while respecting the 2ft minimum radius and keeping the tracks spaced apart properly.

 

Possible points off Up Storage loop 2 are shown in bright red. Possible points off Down Storage loop 3 are shown in bright magenta. I've also shown where the track has to be re-alignment at 2ft radius to fit these new points in.

 

The red option would reduce Storage loop 2 from 3.35m down to 2.54m.

The magenta option would reduce Storage loop 3 from 3.83m down to 2.08m.

A red to red loop would be about 2.5m long and a magenta to magenta loop would be about 1.9m long.

(All lengths ignoring clearance between tracks close to the points.)

 

There are lots of other permutations: You could join red to magenta, forming a long crossover between the up and down loops. Or have two terminal sidings separated in the middle somewhere (as you were suggesting). Or maybe don't use either the red or magenta options and instead have a short crossover between Storage loops 2 and 3 in F1 and G1 with spur sidings off a double slip in the middle. Or...

 

 

I made a small suggested tweak to the terminus fiddle yard: Since the bottom siding has to be kept clear enough for traffic to enter the kickback siding I thought it might make sense for it to be used for the run round loop too because that also needs a clear track to be useful. So I moved the crossover down to the two bottom sidings. (I should really labels those sidings!)

 

BTW: Am I referring to "up main" and "down main" correctly or should they really be thought of as "up relief" and "down relief", with the real main lines off-scene somewhere?

 

Edited March 16, 2019 by Harlequin

[Tallpaul69]

41 minutes ago, Harlequin said:

Hi Paul,

 

I've added grid references around the outside of the design for added clarity.

 

I've pushed the baseboard out to 2ft wide and added the extra branch siding with two kickback sidings because the space was available. In fact it might be a good idea to only use the inner kickback siding (the one that terminates at D2) to give you a little bit of clear bench space.

 

Branch storage 4 is 1.1m long.

 

I'm sure that the terminus board could be entirely cantilevered off the wall (I'll show you my idea later) so I don't think any support legs would be needed anywhere from A1 to J1. So the area A1-A3 and B1 is available for a trailing set of sidings off the Up line if you want and the space for supports from D1 to J1 is free for your DMU sidings. I've shown where the points for a middle "DMU" loop could be taken off the existing curves, while respecting the 2ft minimum radius and keeping the tracks spaced apart properly.

 

Possible points off Up Storage loop 2 are shown in bright red. Possible points off Down Storage loop 3 are shown in bright magenta. I've also shown where the track has to be re-alignment at 2ft radius to fit these new points in.

 

The red option would reduce Storage loop 2 from 3.35m down to 2.54m.

The magenta option would reduce Storage loop 3 from 3.83m down to 2.08m.

A red to red loop would be about 2.5m long and a magenta to magenta loop would be about 1.9m long.

(All lengths ignoring clearance between tracks close to the points.)

 

There are lots of other permutations: You could join red to magenta, forming a long crossover between the up and down loops. Or have two terminal sidings separated in the middle somewhere (as you were suggesting). Or maybe don't use either the red or magenta options and instead have a short crossover between Storage loops 2 and 3 in F1 and G1 with spur sidings off a double slip in the middle. Or...

 

 

I made a small suggested tweak to the terminus fiddle yard: Since the bottom siding has to be kept clear enough for traffic to enter the kickback siding I thought it might make sense for it to be used for the run round loop too because that also needs a clear track to be useful. So I moved the crossover down to the two bottom sidings. (I should really labels those sidings!)

 

BTW: Am I referring to "up main" and "down main" correctly or should they really be thought of as "up relief" and "down relief", with the real main lines off-scene somewhere?

 

Good morning Phil,

Thanks for your continued good work !

Firstly, good idea to have grid labels, it makes it a lot easier to refer to things!

 

I understand what you mean about free bench space!

I think extending  the yard head shunt through to A3 is useful for moving stock on/off the layout.

 

With regard to what the up and down through lines are called, you are correct that they owe more to the real life relief lines than the main lines. However, while you and I will know what we are talking about if we call then the reliefs, other readers less familiar with the real location might get confused!

 

I think I have three areas to look at the timetabling for:-

1) DMUs and use of a middle loop or my suggested sidings.

2) The working of the B2 to K2 branch yard, and also related to this:-

3) The working of the A1- J1 Terminus yard.

 

I do know that the siding ending in D2 would have to hold at the start of the day 3 tank locos, two 61xx and one pannier. In the real world these all left Slough shed early morning. The pannier worked through to Twyford, shunted there and returned through Maidenhead to Taplow c 08.00

The first 61XX arrived at Maidenhead c5.30 to pick up the set of coaches from the carriage siding (ends at D8), and left Maidenhead for Paddington at 06.00,The second 61xx arrived at Maidenhead c6.20, and took the branch to Bourne End to pick up a set of coaches(i.e. from the Terminus yard), and left for Paddington c7.30.

There was also another pannier that arrived at Maidenhead from Slough LE c09.00 and shunted until early afternoon. I have yet to timetable where this comes from. It cannot be the first pannier because that passes through Maidenhead for the branch with a goods from Taplow while the second pannier is in the yard shunting!

So this might have to start from the siding D2 as well.

 

I will probably come back to you on my 3 above points in a couple of posts, as doing it all in one go might get too long and complicated, certainly for anyone except you and I who might read it!

 

Best regards

Paul

[Tallpaul69]

On ‎16‎/‎03‎/‎2019 at 09:48, Harlequin said:

Hi Paul,

 

I've added grid references around the outside of the design for added clarity.

 

I've pushed the baseboard out to 2ft wide and added the extra branch siding with two kickback sidings because the space was available. In fact it might be a good idea to only use the inner kickback siding (the one that terminates at D2) to give you a little bit of clear bench space.

 

Branch storage 4 is 1.1m long.

 

I'm sure that the terminus board could be entirely cantilevered off the wall (I'll show you my idea later) so I don't think any support legs would be needed anywhere from A1 to J1. So the area A1-A3 and B1 is available for a trailing set of sidings off the Up line if you want and the space for supports from D1 to J1 is free for your DMU sidings. I've shown where the points for a middle "DMU" loop could be taken off the existing curves, while respecting the 2ft minimum radius and keeping the tracks spaced apart properly.

 

Possible points off Up Storage loop 2 are shown in bright red. Possible points off Down Storage loop 3 are shown in bright magenta. I've also shown where the track has to be re-alignment at 2ft radius to fit these new points in.

 

The red option would reduce Storage loop 2 from 3.35m down to 2.54m.

The magenta option would reduce Storage loop 3 from 3.83m down to 2.08m.

A red to red loop would be about 2.5m long and a magenta to magenta loop would be about 1.9m long.

(All lengths ignoring clearance between tracks close to the points.)

 

There are lots of other permutations: You could join red to magenta, forming a long crossover between the up and down loops. Or have two terminal sidings separated in the middle somewhere (as you were suggesting). Or maybe don't use either the red or magenta options and instead have a short crossover between Storage loops 2 and 3 in F1 and G1 with spur sidings off a double slip in the middle. Or...

 

 

I made a small suggested tweak to the terminus fiddle yard: Since the bottom siding has to be kept clear enough for traffic to enter the kickback siding I thought it might make sense for it to be used for the run round loop too because that also needs a clear track to be useful. So I moved the crossover down to the two bottom sidings. (I should really labels those sidings!)

 

BTW: Am I referring to "up main" and "down main" correctly or should they really be thought of as "up relief" and "down relief", with the real main lines off-scene somewhere?

 

Good Afternoon Phil, and any others watching this thread.

 

In this post, I am just dealing with my point 1) in my earlier post:-

 

I think a through loop is the best answer and taking on board your comments (below):-

 

The red option would reduce Storage loop 2 from 3.35m down to 2.54m.

The magenta option would reduce Storage loop 3 from 3.83m down to 2.08m.

A red to red loop would be about 2.5m long and a magenta to magenta loop would be about 1.9m long.

(All lengths ignoring clearance between tracks close to the points.)

 

I would go with the red option as the magenta option gives shorter loops and also leaves the right hand end of loop 3 ( in squares K2, L2, and L3) unused if the DMU loop is to be accessed from the right hand end.

Not keen on the idea of spurs off a double slip, I think that would be asking for derailments!!

 

Will post further about the branch fiddle yards, but I do think a useful compromise, to allow some useable bench space, on the kickback sidings in squares B2-E2 would be to lengthen the siding currently ending in square D2 by curving it round beside the down main. I know the curve would have to start quite early to maintain the 2ft minimum radius, and might look a little odd, but I think that is acceptable in a fiddle yard.

Then I would shorten the lower siding just to hold one loco.

I suggest this because it looks like the order the locos return to the yard in the evening is not the order they need to be in for the next morning!

Hope this makes sense?

 

Many thanks

Best regards

Paul

[Harlequin]

Hi Paul,

 

Here are some revisions:

 

 

• DMU loop using the red option and some of the entry curves into the storage loops adjusted to improve clearances.
• Branch kickback storage siding reduced to just one (because even another short one made the bench space so small as to be pointless).
• Compensated for single kickback by extending Branch storage siding 4 around to K3. That extra length and the points ladder should give you enough room to shuffle the locos in the kickback. OK?

 

Edited March 19, 2019 by Harlequin
Finally managed to upload the images.

[Tallpaul69]

Glad you got the uploading sorted Phil!

 

Re the points on the latest plan:-

DMU loop using the red option and some of the entry curves into the storage loops adjusted to improve clearances.- Looks good

Branch kickback storage siding reduced to just one (because even another short one made the bench space so small as to be pointless). OK

Compensated for single kickback by extending Branch storage siding 4 around to K3. That extra length and the points ladder should give you enough room to shuffle the locos in the kickback. Great, I think that works.

 

Can we relabel the down loops to reflect the changes in use??

I suggest:-

Current loop3 becomes down main

Current loop 4 becomes loop3

Current down main becomes loop 4

Also,

I have two trains cycles that identify the area but which I am struggling to find accommodation for part of their routine:-

 

1) a) 5.40am Parcels - Reading to Princes Risborough via Maidenhead and High Wycombe - arrives clockwise in Lower Thames Yard at 6.00am, runs round and proceeds up branch.- OK, there is space in the Terminus yard during the day, but the problem is holding siding for train overnight.

Train splits during day in terminus yard and vans return to Lower Thames Yard on three different passenger trains. -Fine no problem. 

     b) Vans assembled in Lower Thames Yard to form 8.10pm Maidenhead to Reading parcels- departs anticlockwise to overnight holding siding-see a) above

 

The consist of this train is peculiar to it so would prefer not to use the standard clockwise parcels, as that will make several circuits during the day.

The overnight  to be stored consist of this train is 2 bogie parcels vans+ lwb parcels van + 5 swb vans.

This might be held in the lower branch yard, but as present configured, can only access up main via the crossing at 6L to 7K which is inside scenic area. Could this crossover be moved anticlockwise so it could be just inside tunnel(?) and not scenically visible (without altering the L4-L5 crossover).

 

2)  Oxford to Slough Fish and parcels via Reading.

There is no return of this train so the fish vans dropped in Lower Thames Yard need to return anticlockwise in another freight. This is how in real life they got to meet the specialist empty fish van trains from Swindon at Oxford.

This is quite a short train (6vans =brake) which might be squeezed into the Lower Branch Yard, but the crossing to the up main is the same problem as for the Reading Parcels above.

Otherwise can we squeeze a siding for this train in K1- L2?

 

There may be alternate answers, so I am open to suggestions?

 

Best regards

Paul

 

 

[Harlequin]

16 hours ago, Tallpaul69 said:

 

Can we relabel the down loops to reflect the changes in use??

I suggest:-

Current loop3 becomes down main

Current loop 4 becomes loop3

Current down main becomes loop 4

Hi Paul,

 

Yes, we can do that but remember that the current loop 3 is the longest clear loop and it could store two or more trains, depending on length and whether your timetable would allow them to be queued up. Let me know.

 

Quote

Also,

I have two trains cycles that identify the area but which I am struggling to find accommodation for part of their routine:-

 

1) a) 5.40am Parcels - Reading to Princes Risborough via Maidenhead and High Wycombe - arrives clockwise in Lower Thames Yard at 6.00am, runs round and proceeds up branch.- OK, there is space in the Terminus yard during the day, but the problem is holding siding for train overnight.

Train splits during day in terminus yard and vans return to Lower Thames Yard on three different passenger trains. -Fine no problem. 

     b) Vans assembled in Lower Thames Yard to form 8.10pm Maidenhead to Reading parcels- departs anticlockwise to overnight holding siding-see a) above

Is this a case where the train could be queued up in loop 3? If not, perhaps consider manually removing some stock from the tracks during certain periods or tweaking the timetable? I can't see any easy way to add any more storage loops or sidings without radically re-designing everything.

 

Quote

 

The consist of this train is peculiar to it so would prefer not to use the standard clockwise parcels, as that will make several circuits during the day.

The overnight  to be stored consist of this train is 2 bogie parcels vans+ lwb parcels van + 5 swb vans.

This might be held in the lower branch yard, but as present configured, can only access up main via the crossing at 6L to 7K which is inside scenic area. Could this crossover be moved anticlockwise so it could be just inside tunnel(?) and not scenically visible (without altering the L4-L5 crossover).

It can't be moved without affecting the L4-L5 facing crossover, no. They are absolutely back to back.

Its current position as part of the scenic area is sensible - I'd expect to see a trailing crossover in that sort of position.

I think it would be difficult to change that area without having big consequences on the rest of the design and almost certainly shortening the the storage or scenic loops.

 

It would be great to fit in more crossovers between up and down in the storage yard. That could be done but it would be difficult to timetable their use because you'd have to ensure that various loops were empty when you wanted to use them.

 

I think that the current arrangement is a pretty good compromise - you just need to suspend your disbelief for 450mm (18in) of running while the train enters the scene and crosses over to the correct line. Once it has made that initial move you could run it around the up main for a circuit or two so that it does enter the scene on the correct line next time round. (And that better simulates the distance the train travels to get from Reading to Lower Thames Yard.) Perhaps you could justify that initial crossover move by saying that just off scene there are some complex crossovers between the fast main lines, the relief lines and other goods loops and that the trailing crossover on scene is just the final part of that complex. So trains that apparently enter on the "wrong" line have in fact just been crossing it as part of a much more complex move.

 

Quote

 

2)  Oxford to Slough Fish and parcels via Reading.

There is no return of this train so the fish vans dropped in Lower Thames Yard need to return anticlockwise in another freight. This is how in real life they got to meet the specialist empty fish van trains from Swindon at Oxford.

This is quite a short train (6vans =brake) which might be squeezed into the Lower Branch Yard, but the crossing to the up main is the same problem as for the Reading Parcels above.

Otherwise can we squeeze a siding for this train in K1- L2?

Yes, possibly but it would be short and difficult to access under the branch incline. What about a trailing siding or sidings at A1, B1, A2 , A3?

 

Food for thought!

Edited March 21, 2019 by Harlequin

[Tallpaul69]

Phil,

Thanks for your thoughts on my last posting, lets leave the loop labelling as it is for the moment.

 

Re the occupation of the loops and mains within the fiddle yard, I need the minimum of two trains in each one unless I am leaving the up and down mains free for trains to continuously circuit while I am doing complex shunting in the yard. Hopefully I can also squeeze in a few minimal trains to vary the running.

 

One further unique train I have yet to work out how I am going to portray is the use of a 3 car GW railcar set for an empty morning run Reading to Slough, and then a return trip Slough to Newbury. In real life this was the only one of these sets in the area, it spent the rest of the day between Reading and Newbury.

The possibilities are either to run two single GW railcars with a coach in between, or try to find out what was used when the set was being serviced or had broken down, and see if that can be modelled!. I will try asking the question in the Prototype section of the forum!  At worse, it will have to be another class117 DMU!

If I can find a satisfactory consist then I might work a second trip in the early evening into the timetable, perhaps instead of the umpteenth circuit of the Class 117 DMUs or of one of the expresses! 

 

Re the Reading-Princes Risborough parcels , your thought about it moving from fast to relief is a good one. I wanted to try to avoid running it round several times to preserve its unique status.

 

Re the Oxford-Slough Fish, I think it is getting to the stage when I need to decide the "overnight" occupation of the loops and mains and also how the reversing of the up trains to down trains might work. Then I can see what waiting locos etc. need to be in sidings in area A1-A3 to B1, and see if the "Fish" can be fitted in there. It might also fit into one of the long loops with two other trains, but the tricky bit is working out which freights the fish vans will run anticlockwise round on their return trip to Reading with, and then how they get shunted to come together!

 

I think we should try to avoid more fiddle yard cross overs, as you say they impact the timetabling, and the capacity of the loops. There are bound to be compromises to think round between which trains can be stored one behind the other, and which trains best use the differing loop lengths.

 

I do find timetabling satisfying so this will not be a chore. 

 

Best regards

Paul

[Chimer]

A while back Phil wondered about an alternative approach - have you considered the possibilities of either a) having the branch descend from the junction instead of rising (might make it's disappearance easier to arrange) or b) keeping it on the level and having it share the outer circuit fiddle sidings (much easier now it's single track) ?

[Tallpaul69]

17 minutes ago, Chimer said:

A while back Phil wondered about an alternative approach - have you considered the possibilities of either a) having the branch descend from the junction instead of rising (might make it's disappearance easier to arrange) or b) keeping it on the level and having it share the outer circuit fiddle sidings (much easier now it's single track) ?

Thanks for this Chimer,

 

Yes, going down rather than up has a number of benefits. As you say it is easier to make it disappear. The main problem to get over is access. It would be necessary to run the branch so that its fiddle yard was at the front of the area below the main fiddle yard rather than the back. I think that it might be necessary to run the branch all the way round at a lower level so as to terminate under the front of the "Lower Thames Yard" goods yard?

 

Maybe Phil can draw out the possibilities?

 

Running the branch on the level is where I started with my drawing "Partly Maidenhead", the only difference being that the branch was in the inside rather than the outside.

One of the problems with everything on one level is that of fiddle yard siding/loop space, and the yards capacity. Lower Thames Yard has only just about enough space to run a realistic service on the min line and branch, bearing in mind that the "Branch" was really more of a single track main line! While I can get away with running the same express through a number of times to portray different expresses, you do really need a variety of trains (expresses, stopping trains, suburban trains, pick up freights, fast freights), and a few trains peculiar to the line to give it its unique flavour.

 

Partly Maidenhead got round the space problem by the branch being round and round and only having one branch yard. However that yard had more kickback sidings than the two branch fiddle yards here in Lower Thames Yard, so would probably be more difficult to operate.

 

Again, perhaps Phil can draw your idea out?  

 

Glad someone has contributed some different ideas, how about some others, please folks?

 

Best regards

Paul

[Harlequin]

The idea behind having the branch line change level was to increase the storage capacity vertically rather than try to fit it all in on the one level. Since it's important to keep all the storage lines accessible that means that the most sensible arrangement is for the smaller branch storage yard to be above the mainline storage.

 

A descending gradient running inside the main layout circuits would have to travel further round the room to achieve the clearance, as you point out. I think it would be prone to knocks as you reach over it to do things on the main layout, things getting left on the branch line or dropping down onto it would be more likely to cause derailments and I think it would be more difficult to make it work scenically.

 

Having the branch line rise around the outside gives maximum length to achieve the clearance and creates a better "staged" view of traffic on the branch line, IMHO.

 

It also feels right to me that a branch line has a real terminus (although non-scenic) to avoid the temptation/danger of traffic you had sent up the branch suddenly appearing on the main line!

 

So I don't think that a descending inner branch or an outer branch on the same level would give an advantage overall.

Edited March 23, 2019 by Harlequin