I can make a start

[Antony Farrell]

I finally have a place for my railway. So have just started track planning.

This was just to see if I could get 3ft radius curves (the inner one). Now I have to plan the platform and where to sight it. The odd shape is to allow for the doors.

What I am looking for is a double track station. I am working on the basis that the Midland's plan for London Buckinghamshire and East Gloucestershire Railway came to pass around 1864. The route would be running from Amersham to Princes Risborough. At this time the only lines in the area would have been the broad gauge lines of the Wycombe Railway. The L B & E.G from Princes Risborough would have run out to Thame, so following the Wycombe Railway. My setting is 1912/13 so the broad gauge has gone but what route from Amersham to Princes Risborough would the line follow. I am thinking of it joining the Wycombe Railway just north of West Wycombe, possibly where Saunderton is. So at this time some mixed gauge track. The layout is to be in OO usinh Peco 75 streamline track. What do people think? Any suggestions? Also how far apart would this make the track centre lines when the broad gauge was converted?

Edited May 25, 2019 by Antony Farrell

[The Johnster]

You've obviously spent a bit of time thinking what sort of prototype you are going to base the layout on. Former broad gauge lines generally kept to the broad gauge track centres, with a noticeably wider '6 foot' between the up and down lines.  I was once told that this was because the 'outside' edge of the running line needed to be it's previous distance in from the cess in order to drain properly, but don't take this as gospel; per way is not my field of expertise!  There would have been no loading gauge advantage to be had from converting broad to standard gauge; side and overhead clearances were the same.

 

I'm not familiar with the area so can't really comment on the route your line might have taken.  Your track plan is at a very early stage, but there doesn't seem to be much room for much beyond an up and down line and a station.  Where are your hidden sidings going to go?  Goods yard?  Lay by siding?  

 

All to be revealed in due course, I'm sure.  'Finally' having a place for your railway sounds like it's been a while a'coming, so good news that it's now here and you can make a start.  Good luck, have fun, and keep us posted, Anthony!

 

[Antony Farrell]

Looking at putting the station along the diagonal. Boards are not marked for this location but it can be expanded inward for the station buildings, some scenic area etc. Fiddle yards would then go against the back wall. The side areas would be mostly scenic.  Though I could put a small halt along there as well.

I am thinking a station based upon Haddenham would work. Now back to the plans to see how much I can fit in.

Edited May 26, 2019 by Antony Farrell

[Harlequin]

Hi Antony,

 

You've got a great space there to do something really wonderful. Where is the door? Does the diagonal section have a backscene? Is it acceptable to have to duck under the main scenic area, where the baseboards might be quite wide?

 

Your prototype inspiration sounds interesting. I didn't know that the Midland dabbled in broad gauge.

 

Not sure about broad gauge track spacing and can't find anything online. As a first approximation you could guess that broad gauge vehicles had the same separation as narrow (standard) gauge do now. On that basis I make the broad gauge track centres ~56.5mm (assuming 45mm standard gauge centres) or ~62.5mm (assuming Streamline 51mm centres). But of course when you've got a wide trackbed there are any number of ways to position the new standard gauge tracks on it. I suspect the engineers would probably have used that freedom to set the new tracks at the standard spacing and improve the alignments.

 

Where double track ran between platforms, assuming that the platforms weren't rebuilt at the time of gauge conversion, the new standard gauge track would be spaced to run alongside the platform edges, giving an even greater distance than simply maintaining the broad gauge track centres, of course!

Edited May 26, 2019 by Harlequin

[Antony Farrell]

I don't think the Midland dabbled in broad gauge but the line they wanted to run alongside was broad gauge up till 1871ish, the Wycombe Railway was strongly linked with the GWR. Probably why the GWR put up such a fight to stop this line and in real life succeeded. 

There is a double door to the bottom and a single to the right both of which open outwards so the triangle not covered with anything gives access to both doors. Possibly a lifting section to give centre access.

 

Rough plan of station area at Haddenham. Track spacing would need to be widened as the original was built as a standard gauge  The small goods yard would be on the interior side so can be easily reached by hand. Goods trains reverse into these. So a narrow scenic section on this side.

 

 

Edited May 27, 2019 by Antony Farrell

[Chimer]

Unless your stock demands 3'+ radius, I would tighten and hide the 90-degree-plus curves in the bottom left and top right corners to give a longer straight(ish) run across the diagonal where you are thinking of having your station.  Alternatively, still tighten and hide those bends, and put the station on a gentle curve between them around the top left quadrant (which would probably require an access manhole in the top left corner).  And I would see the right hand wall as a possible place for something akin to a fiddle yard.  But Phil's question about the door position is key …….. 

[Antony Farrell]

It will be pre-grouping so apart from some long bogey coaches most stock would be fairly short. I want 3-link couplings. But I was tempted to reduce the radius somewhat, say to 2ft 6ins in old money. I don't know if this would cause buffer locking on the coaches but a thin piece of wire across there ends should take care of that (I think)

[Pete the Elaner]

Can you re-mount the door so it opens outwards? That way you will have more space available.

I did for my layout room 

[Antony Farrell]

As mentioned previously the doors do open outwards but I need some access to the next room which is my art studio so I need to be able to move canvases etc. though the doors without too much jiggling.

[Harlequin]

Now that we understand the room a bit better, here's my interpretation of @Chimer's suggestion:

 

• The scenic areas are on display from the two room entrances.
• Fiddle yard open to access from both sides (no backscene in the middle of the room).
• Access well in top left corner as per Chimer.
• Reduced width lifting section in non-scenic area carrying double track only.
• Rough guideline radii shown. Hidden small radius like Chimer suggested.
• Basically diagonal arrangement to keep scenic area flowing rather than getting "stuck" in a corner.

(Door positions guessed!)

 

Edited May 28, 2019 by Harlequin

[Chimer]

So, you can read minds as well as doing beautiful pictures  ..... I do keep finding myself planning station areas round gentle 90 degree curves which I think maximises use of this sort of space.  Using proprietary pointwork means the flow can't be quite as smooth as some of our genius trackbuilders could achieve, but I quite like some of my plans - must build one some day 

[The Johnster]

That 610mm radius curve may be an issue for the OP if he intends to use scale couplings, and it's more or less on the 2' minimum radius curve that used to be recommended for code 100 streamline; 75 is a bit more delicate.  It is difficult to accurately lay such a tight curve accurately with any flexitrack as the track's natural tendency is to form it's own transition curves, meaning that the middle part of the curve is a much sharper radius than spec.  

 

If tension lock couplers are acceptable, I would suggest that reliability is best served by using setrack no 3 and 4 radius in this location, but this will mean that the code 75 track used elsewhere on the layout has to be be built up from beneath so that the rail heads are level.  On the positive side, at least it's out of sight  The other way to go uses more space, but is essential if scale couplings or kit built stock that will not tolerate sub 2' radius curves are going to be used.  The tunnel entrance is moved left as far as square J1 or 2, and the curve is started before the tunnel is entered; the combination of these two features means that a larger radius can be used, but it will probably enter the 'outside' edge of the fiddle yard and restrict space here.  Some precision planning and track laying will be needed.  There is no such thing as a big enough fiddle yard, and there are no such things as long enough roads in them either...

 

I'd be considering moving the tunnel entrance to J anyway, as the look of coaches bending into such an angle as they enter the sharp curve in the tunnel is objectionable to me.  I reckon you need a coach length at least here, all of which eats in to your scenic area.

 

I agree about the 'station on a curve'.  Many years ago I operated an exhibition layout which was a model of a real station that was on a curve, but on the model had been straightened out.  I knew the prototype quite well, and it just felt, and looked, well, wrong!!!  The format wasted space and actually restricted the width of the goods yard and made it's access road at the wrong angle.  I'd put the station on this layout between B10 and C4, or between E2/3 and J1 or K1, platforms right up to the tunnel wings; there's not much point in the platforms being much longer than this as the length of your trains will be restricted by the fiddle yard size.  I like the idea of viewing it from the well in the top left, as trains make their way around a curve the observer is on the outside of.

 

Some space in the fiddle yard might be saved (every inch counts here) by having some of it's left hand end 'throat' on the lifting section, which would have to be shaped to suit.  This would make it more complex to align and wire up, and a little heavier, but there's no such thing as a free lunch, either...

[Harlequin]

Lots of very good points there and, as you suggest, it's all about Antony making the compromises that suit him best.

 

 

My drawing just illustrates where small radii would help make other elements longer and fit the layout into the room more easily - and that they can be disguised.

 

BTW: I've laid 610mm radius Code 75 Flexitrack with no problem at all. I suspect Code 75 Bullhead would be fine at that radius too. It is even more delicate - but maybe that means it's less prone to spring away from the intended curve.

[Chimer]

7 hours ago, The Johnster said:

#1 - If tension lock couplers are acceptable, I would suggest that reliability is best served by using setrack no 3 and 4 radius in this location, but this will mean that the code 75 track used elsewhere on the layout has to be be built up from beneath so that the rail heads are level.  

 

#2 - Some space in the fiddle yard might be saved (every inch counts here) by having some of it's left hand end 'throat' on the lifting section, which would have to be shaped to suit.  This would make it more complex to align and wire up, and a little heavier, but there's no such thing as a free lunch, either...

 

#1 - I would use set-track curves ….. and code 75/100 adapter tracks (if I used code 75).

 

#2 - And/or the right hand throat can start to open up in N4/5, to make one road in each direction as long as possible.

[The Johnster]

The OP stated that the layout was to be in 00 Peco code 75 Streamline.  Adapter tracks involve a change in level over a quite short distance and I think it is better to pack the code 75 to code 100 level, given that some track base is desirable on the scenic section anyway.  

 

I would take the start of the throat back to N3 if possible in order to maximise the length, using curve points but not setrack as these really need to be live frog.  The fiddle yard is not going to be extensive; I can't see it being more than 3 or 4 roads in each direction, so only 6 or 8 trains on the layout at any one time, which is a bit limiting. 

[Antony Farrell]

Wow, doors are in about the right positions. I do like 3-link and screw couplings so need to keep that n mind. Also a lot of my loco stock will be kit built (I have a mountain of these to build) but I don't know what the minimum radius would be for these. Most of the track I have is the Peco 75, which is why I mentioned it. As mentioned the longest stock would be some 70' bogie coaches but most are much shorter. Perhaps a compromise on curves of around 30" (76.2 cm) radius.

[DCB]

I would smooth out the angles and go for a curved edge to the baseboards and the backscene while maximising visible area, see pic.  Just put a ply or hardboard fascia and trim the baseboard edge to suit with a "Jigsaw"    I would definitely go for set track for the curves, Not rocket science to pack the entire baseboard a couple of mm higher under the ballasted visible code 75 and lower where it transitions to code 100,  That said the continental manufacturers seem to be ahead with curves, 4th radius is a good minimum but the continental folks do bigger than that if you read US published mags and I would go that route. I actually bend set track out to larger radii by cutting webs but its because I have a severe aversion to spending money.   Obviously the bigger radius on the visible the better but there isn't much 00 which can't get round 4th radius forwards. (Backwards is a different matter, some RTR can't go backwards in a straight line without de railing.

As regards the layout I would maximise the visible part of the layout, push the tunnel mouth back into a cutting where you can't really see the sharp curve and put an over bridge as a scenic break at the FY end.  I think a traverser would be ideal as a FY here as there is plenty of room to slide it out into the room when operating and into the operating well when not operating as the pointwork will otherwise make for a very short usable length of fiddle. In fact it could be a turntable yard as there is room to swing it.  That could also do away with the need for a lifting section as you could turn it for access but it's quite an engineering challenge I admit.  Being able to reverse trains without handling would prove invaluable in the long term with highly detailed scratch built or even modern RTR which does not take kindly to being handled.

 

 

Edited May 29, 2019 by DavidCBroad

[Harlequin]

Fiddle yard points fans: Yes, start them as soon as possible to make the fiddle roads as long as possible but there's a gotcha: A double-track roundy-round layout needs to be able to reverse trains and so they need to crossover from up to down, or vice versa, off-scene. So, to allow all storage roads to crossover if needed before re-appearing on scene the outermost element at both ends of the FY needs to be a crossover (and possibly two for maximum flexibility). One of them could usefully live on the lifting section as the Johnster suggested earlier.

 

Minimum radii: 762mm in the corners of my drawing creates real problems for the fiddle yard - unless it's allowed to eat into the circulation space a bit more. Even then you have to push it uncomfortably close to the backscene. I'm not sure what limitation three-link or screw couplings would impose on radii. (And are they really practical for operation?)

 

Maximising the scenic part and curved edges: Great idea: Panoramic!

 

Traverser or Turntable: With these designs there are no permanent through lines and that means that when the traverser or turntable is moving, you have stop running through trains. You could try to slow them down and keep them running but it would be stressful to move the FY deck and get it re-aligned and re-connected before the through train arrives!

 

Turning: You only really need to turn locos (and brake vans), not entire trains. The simplest way to do that without too much handling is to use loco lifts but a loco turntable could be incorporated into the off-scene or maybe even into the scenic area.

 

FY capacity: On my drawing there's enough room for 12 roads at standard Peco Streamline spacing (51mm). In practice, that might be reduced a bit because you might want wider spacing. Not all of them could be full length and not all of them could be loops.

 

(Personally, I don't see any problem with just using Code 75 trackwork throughout. It might depend on how it's fixed down, though.)

Edited May 29, 2019 by Harlequin

[Harlequin]

Sorry Antony, I hope you don't think I've gone too far.

 

It's all just suggestions and ideas for you to use as you see fit.

 

[The Johnster]

Kit build locos and stock are traditionally specced to be able to negotiate 2' (610mm) curves, Harlequin's minimum inside radius, but in practice they vary according to how they've been built and the degree of 'negotiation' they need to get around varies as well.  I have some Ratio 4 wheelers which do not like a no.4 curve in the fiddle yard.  You are fortunate in that you will not need to propel stock around the tightest curves.  Scale couplings are going to potentially be an issue as well with curvature of this sort, especially instanters in the 'short' position.  You can cheat by mounting the hooks a little further out from the headstock than scale and lightly sprung buffers will improve matters; screws and 3-link should be less demanding but may still cause buffer locking.  A little side play if you can manage it will be useful.

 

Transition curves will help as well; the problem is that buffers get behind each other on the curve and forces the stock off the rails when the train straightens out, and a transition curve gives the buffers a fighting chance of getting back to their proper place.  Buffers should be large enough to prevent this happening in real life, which is why long vehicles have oval buffers and industrial locos that work around sharp curvature on rough track have large ones.  Model ones are scale because they'd look wrong otherwise, but are actually too small to cope with the sort of curvature we use.

 

Of course, transition curves will eat into the scenic space, and really you need a bigger room; everyone does!  The room you've got is the room you've got and whatever layout you build will be compromised; everyone's is, even Pete Waterman's...

 

The factors to be taken into account are the type of coupling used, the minimum curve that can be reliably used, and the maximum train length.  Peco Streamline fixed turnouts will restrict you to Peco track geometry, and you may be able to 'get more in' by building your own bespoke pointwork on curves.  The layout as modified by Harlequin is possible assuming a train length of about 8 coaches/25 wagons, but will have to be very carefully built and the track very precisely laid to achieve this.  To ensure clearance on curves track centres may have to be eased.  

 

Taking your longest vehicle, which will probably be a bogie coach if it's not a Beyer Garratt, class 40 or Peak (note that the buffers of these locos are ordinary sized because they are mounted to the bogies not the locomotive), tape felt tip pens to the centre of the bodyshell and the outside edge of the end corners so that the tips rest on the baseboard.  Then, gently push the vehicle around the layout.  The pens will trace the locus of the fouling points of the vehicle's centre and end throw in the '6 foot' and the cess, plus the width of half the pen as a safety margin.  If the lines cross each other by more than the half width of the pen, fouling will occur, and it they are close, may still occur as the coaches wobble at speed.

 

This will also show you the 'clearance points' at the fiddle yard throats, and the length of train you can get 'inside clear' on each fiddle yard road.  It's best done at the stage when the track is laid but not permanently fixed (so that things can still be eased if they need to be) and the baseboard not yet painted so that the pen marks will be covered up.

 

 

[Antony Farrell]

19 hours ago, Harlequin said:

Sorry Antony, I hope you don't think I've gone too far.

 

It's all just suggestions and ideas for you to use as you see fit.

 

Not at all. I was hoping for suggestions. This discussion has given me heaps of ideas to ponder upon. Once I have the plan settled it will be time to get the timberwork done.

[Antony Farrell]

I'm not sure but I vaguely remember reading that instanter couplings were not in use in 1912/13 but came in sometime after? If true then 3-link or screw. I am not completely against the idea of proprietary couplings if absolutely necessary but since I like to watch entire trains moving shunting would be the secondary activity and most stock would be semi-permanently coupled. I am also looking at a highly scenic layout so hiding curves should not be too difficult.

Regarding train lengths I like the ides of up to 4-5 coaches of 70' length able to stop at platforms and something a bit longer for through expresses. Since most coaches will be shorter than this the actual number of coaches could be larger.

[Harlequin]

I was curious to see if a fiddle yard with fixed point fans would work in the space suggested so I had a go and came up with this:

• I re-aligned the fiddle yard board  to take up a bit more of the circulation space and that allowed 762mm radius curves at both ends.
• The points are all Streamline curved, medium radius and large Ys. So minimum radius goes down to 711mm (28in) in places due to the curved points.
• Trailing crossovers at either end allow reversing trains to appear on the correct track when they exit the FY.
• Loops have varying lengths and about half of them are long enough for 5 * 70ft coaches + loco.

 

Edited June 2, 2019 by Harlequin
Corrected curved point inner radius

[The Johnster]

On 30/05/2019 at 04:27, Antony Farrell said:

I'm not sure but I vaguely remember reading that instanter couplings were not in use in 1912/13 but came in sometime after? If true then 3-link or screw. I am not completely against the idea of proprietary couplings if absolutely necessary but since I like to watch entire trains moving shunting would be the secondary activity and most stock would be semi-permanently coupled. I am also looking at a highly scenic layout so hiding curves should not be too difficult.

Regarding train lengths I like the ides of up to 4-5 coaches of 70' length able to stop at platforms and something a bit longer for through expresses. Since most coaches will be shorter than this the actual number of coaches could be larger.

Instanter couplings were originally a GW patented invention, from the 30s IIRC.  The much more common BR version was 'beefed up' a bit.  They can be deployed in a long or short configuration, the short configuration being used on part fitted or fully fitted trains which are allowed to run at up to 45mph to keep the distance between buffer heads short and limit the 'snatch' effect when the wagons have bunched up as the loco brakes, perhaps descending a bank, and then accelerates away at the bottom.  This can cause coupling breakage and injury to the guard in the van if it is not done carefully or the guard has not applied his van brake to control the rear of the train.

 

In the long position, they were used on unfitted trains limited to 25mph.  The advantage is of course that shunting with a shunting pole is easier, a desirable feature for trip or local workings.  The little 'horns' on the centre link are for the shunter to shorten or lengthen the coupling with his pole without having to go in between the wagons, a dangerous and time consuming activity.  Screw coupling of course require the shunter to go between in order to tighten the bottle screw (skilled men could do this with the pole), but as he had to usually go in between in order to connect vacuum and steam heating hoses (we called them 'bags' on the WR) anyway there was no need.  One of the first things you did when you went in between was to pull the vacuum hose off it's 'dummy' connector so that the driver could not release the brake and move the train, and it was always important that he knew you were going in there.  

 

Instanters are therefore not suitable for your period.  You need 3-link couplings for your freight and mineral stock but passenger rated stock (including 'XP' fitted freight vehicles) must have screw couplings, which, in the days when my eyesight was up to operating with scale couplings, I found easier to deal with anyway.  Some stock was still using side chains in your period I believe but you probably know more about this than I do!

[Antony Farrell]

If I flip the rough plan for Haddenham so that its good yard is on the operating well side then such shunting as will occur will be easily accessible. That is an impressive looking fiddle yard too.

Can anyone confirm whether the 2 slips on the plan are single?