Help with new layout design

[Harlequin]

5 minutes ago, Flying Pig said:

 

If it's important to you that trains go past and then later return, so you can imagine they've been somewhere, then yes, you need to be able to reverse trains. If you are happy to watch a sequence of trains passing by then in this case only the branch trains need to reverse in the fiddle yard and your plan can be simplified somewhat (though @Chimer's scheme doesn't add much complexity).  You need to make your own mind up on this point and not be pushed by other's assertions of what constitutes 'operation'.

Yes, fair point. I was assuming that the OP would want to operate in a more prototypical manner with trains running Down and then Up later (or vice versa) but it doesn't have to be that way.

5 minutes ago, Flying Pig said:

Where you must take advice is in removing the double slip from the main line and substituting a plain point and crossover.  Double slips were always very scarce in junctions like this and on modern high speed main lines they are pretty much unknown.

 

 

Great if there's room but slips really help with compressing a plan into a space.

 

[The Stationmaster]

8 hours ago, Harlequin said:

As David says, you need crossovers outside the loops to be able to reverse trains and run them on the correct tracks. Ideally you need two crossovers, or a scissors crossover, at both ends but that eats up space and it is possible to work with just one crossover if you’re organised.

 

If the storage loops are much longer than your trains (as they seem to be) then it’s difficult to use them efficiently and they are to some degree wasting valuable space. Shortening them would help to insert the crossovers mentioned above.

 

Some of the curves in the hidden storage look a bit sharp. If you’ve got the room then larger radii help with smoother running and closer coupled vehicles.

 

The station seems to be awkwardly curved. Gently curved platforms are great but tighter curves require a larger gap between track and platform, which looks less realistic.

 

I notice that Castle Cary has a very long lead into the branch line, starting far outside the station. That might be interesting to model. It looks like it was part of a set of loops to manage traffic at the junction, which would also be interesting if you could stretch reality and imagine that the station hadn’t been so ruthlessly rationalised. 

 

Please don’t  be put off by these comments. You’ve made some good decisions and I think you’re heading in a good direction!

Castle Cary layout has changed considerably over the years and the long lead (converted Down Loop) to the back platform is a modern innovation dating from the 1980s and interestingly if two branch trains are crossing it of necessity imposes right hand running through length of the branch loop and station itself which was done in order to improve the main line speeds at the west end of the station and create faster connections to from the Weymouth branch.  the current layout bears little resemblance to the earlier double line branch junction either before or after the long goods loops were provided east of the station.

 

Ianly's layout wuld be greatly improved by providing a separate Main Lines trailing crossover and connection to the branch loop and there is I think ample length of straight track to allow that.  instead of what appears t be a diamond or even a slip (??).

 

I think if anybody is going to draw inspiration from a prototype layout they face two problems.  the first is having the space to replicate what they want to replicate in their chosen scale.  But more importantly the second is to get an understanding of what has happened over the years - double slips in fact running lines were a very rare commodity in the steam age (although we know of one on the B&H Extension/Stert & Westbury of course) but from the mid 1960s onwards they became an absolute 'no no' on the WR and once Phillip Ress became Chief civil Engineer single slips were banned as well and were removed as fast as money allowed.  Most of the WR's resignalling schemes were financed by removing as much pointwork as possible and using in what was left only standard 'off the peg' items instead of the \specials' which had been a feature of GWR days.

 

If somebody wished to model Newbury in a relatively restricted space I would chose the west end (as Ianly did in an earlier plan) but doing it to match the real thing with the branch bay on the Up side (i.e. the same side as the actual branch line) and also retaining a Down bay as well but with no connection at all between the branch and the Down bay - work on the KISS basis if you want it to look realistic and if you want to operate it like the real thing.  Keep a trailing crossover between the Main LInes and its ideal for DMU working with arriving trains crossing back to the Up side and dieselise a retained branch passenger service although perhaps copy the real world and use. a Class 22 for the branch freight.  Do that it could really could loopk and work like Newbury.

[Flying Pig]

1 hour ago, Harlequin said:

Yes, fair point. I was assuming that the OP would want to operate in a more prototypical manner with trains running Down and then Up later (or vice versa) but it doesn't have to be that way.

 

Sorry to labour this, but I think we need to be careful about labelling things prototypical.  Consider the main line services through Castle Cary.  A train passes in the down direction and doesn't return in the Up direction for several hours.  Meanwhile, several identical sets pass in each direction.  Using one model, reversed in the fiddle yard, to represent all these real trains is economical but is it actually more prototypical than using two that circulate without reversing?  

 

[Harlequin]

1 hour ago, Flying Pig said:

 

Sorry to labour this, but I think we need to be careful about labelling things prototypical.  Consider the main line services through Castle Cary.  A train passes in the down direction and doesn't return in the Up direction for several hours.  Meanwhile, several identical sets pass in each direction.  Using one model, reversed in the fiddle yard, to represent all these real trains is economical but is it actually more prototypical than using two that circulate without reversing?  

 

I take your point - there are different ways to model prototypical operations.

 

But to answer that specific question: Yes, it is clearly more prototypical to have one model representing one real world train (and for that model to reverse to represent the reversed real world train) than to represent one train with two models.

 

We're dancing on pinheads, now, though!

 

Edited July 23, 2020 by Harlequin

[Chimer]

Too interesting a digression not to comment on (sorry OP) 'cos it made me think ...... in my (planned) 1960s world I know I would be perfectly happy for a single DMU to represent any number of services in any direction, but wouldn't contemplate a Jubilee or Princess Coronation passing in the same direction twice on two different services, or doing a return working before it could have got there (wherever there is) and back.  What I don't know is whether I would be as picky when it comes to an anonymous (as in un-named) Black 5 or Crab, which I should have lots of, but probably won't - I rather suspect not!  Certainly a rake of coaches would be used many times with different engines, because I simply wouldn't buy the numbers I would need to do otherwise. 

 

I think the average watcher (as opposed to RMWebbers) will remember names not numbers, and locos not coaches.  I know back in the day I collected numbers, but remembered names - so I'd know at once if I copped a Jubilee, but would need my book to know about a Black 5 (apart from the ones we saw every day, of course).

[Flying Pig]

10 minutes ago, Chimer said:

Too interesting a digression not to comment on (sorry OP) 'cos it made me think ...... in my (planned) 1960s world I know I would be perfectly happy for a single DMU to represent any number of services in any direction, but wouldn't contemplate a Jubilee or Princess Coronation passing in the same direction twice on two different services, or doing a return working before it could have got there (wherever there is) and back.  What I don't know is whether I would be as picky when it comes to an anonymous (as in un-named) Black 5 or Crab, which I should have lots of, but probably won't - I rather suspect not!  Certainly a rake of coaches would be used many times with different engines, because I simply wouldn't buy the numbers I would need to do otherwise. 

 

 

You're already compromising and using the same carriages stock to represent many different trains. Now think about what this means on a present day line operated by unit trains of a very limited number of types (as in this thread).  You see an 80x unit go down, heading to Plymouth.  In the real world it doesn't return for hours and in the meantime you see numerous other trains of the same type go by.  How are you going to represent this on a model?  Are you going to have one model for each service?  Probably not.

 

So each time a model goes by it represents a different real train. Is it more prototypical for the down train to transform into a different up train a few miles down the line than for it to reappear as the following down train? Not really IMO.  It's all make believe to some extent.

[ianly]

Thanks, all for the excellent feedback. Also, apologies for not being as clear as I should have been regarding stock that I've already acquired. I've addressed this and some of the other comments below.

• In terms of bi-directional trains, I have four 2+4 HSS sets, a 2+3 800 IET, three 2-car DMUs and one 1-car DMU. Obviously, the HSTs aren't prototypical with Castle Cary but they were/are further west. In this regard, I think I'll apply Rule 1. As for the HST Power cars, they're all GWR green, albeit with different names, numbers, etc. On the other hand, the coaches can be any mix of GWR green or FGW neon blue that I choose. So, in terms of livery I can run four different HSTs, and all would prototypical. The same applies to the four DMUs. As such, I don't need to run them in reverse, but it does seems like an idea worth investigating.
• I had used the slip to save space. However, the suggestion to change same to trailing crossover on main lines and link to the branch is one I will adopt.
• Each straight section in storage loops is 80 inches or 2032 mm. My longest train is 78 inches or 1980 mm but most are less. Therefore, I could park the longest train part way round a bend and make the loops shorter. However, when originally drafting the plan I found that shorter loops made it more difficult to align the curved turnouts. Reducing to five lanes in each direction works much easier but that reduces the variation that another two two trains would give. I'll need to give this a bit more thought before doing anything so rash.
• Unfortunately, Chimer's suggested method of shortening the storage loops won't work. First, I've planned for twelve loops to maximise the stock on the layout, and secondly, the schematic is 1300mm long excluding the curves onto the loops. Unless I'm missing something, this approach would take up a lot more space than I have available.
• The curved station is something that I'd like fix. As for Chimers suggestion, I've been there on page one of this thread, albeit with four lines, and don't like it. Fortunately, there are other options (e.g Burngullow Lane) https://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/137733-burngullow-lane/

Again, thanks for your comments.

 

Ian

 

 

[Chimer]

4 hours ago, ianly said:

• Unfortunately, Chimer's suggested method of shortening the storage loops won't work. First, I've planned for twelve loops to maximise the stock on the layout, and secondly, the schematic is 1300mm long excluding the curves onto the loops. Unless I'm missing something, this approach would take up a lot more space than I have available.

 

Having looked back up the thread, it looks like there's 12' x 4' to fit the storage loops into, from the tunnel mouth on the right to the overbridge on the left?  If that's right, I'll have a non-schematic play tomorrow to see what I can conjure up ..... lots of the points can (probably) go on the bends, which is why I said my diagram was only schematic .....

Edited July 23, 2020 by Chimer

[ianly]

8 hours ago, Chimer said:

 

Having looked back up the thread, it looks like there's 12' x 4' to fit the storage loops into, from the tunnel mouth on the right to the overbridge on the left?  If that's right, I'll have a non-schematic play tomorrow to see what I can conjure up ..... lots of the points can (probably) go on the bends, which is why I said my diagram was only schematic .....

 

My arrangement is 12' x 4' but if it can be reduced to 12' x 3' that would be ideal. Looking forward to what you come up with.

[Chimer]

8 hours ago, ianly said:

 

My arrangement is 12' x 4' but if it can be reduced to 12' x 3' that would be ideal. Looking forward to what you come up with.

 

I think this is the best I can do .....

 

 

The main curves are 3rd or 4th radius set-track.  The shorter curves need bits of flexi, but there's nothing tighter than 3rd radius.  The points are Streamline curved or short.  Approx loop lengths are shown in inches.  It does need the whole 4 feet! 

 

There are 11 roads.  The top 3 are clockwise only - the third could be added to the bi-directional ladders but it and the fourth would then be under 2 feet (for 1 or 2-car DMUs perhaps).  One or two more of the bottom roads could be made anti-clockwise only if you preferred, using the arrangement shown on the left hand side.  There is probably an alternative arrangement of the points which could lengthen one of the 72" roads at the expense of the 106".

 

No idea if this will help, but feel free to steal some or any of the ideas ...

 

Cheers, Chris

[ianly]

Thanks for taking the time draw this up, Chris. While it provides bidirectional access I think it's a tad complicated (for me anyway) compared to Harlequin's suggestion of crossovers where the storage loops link to the main lines. Yes, they take up a little additional space, but with a bit of work to the storage loops (again suggested by Harlequin) I've managed to fit them in but may reduce to one set.

 

I had to reduce the length of the storage loops (except for the outermost) to 74 inches (1880mm), which has also enabled me to ease the overly tighter curves into/out of the storage area. The tightest is now just slightly less than 4th radius. Also, keeping the length of the straight section of the storage loops to not less than 74 inches means that I can store all but one train in the straight section of 11 loops. The remaining loop is also long enough to store my longest train on a straight section. Centre to centre, the straight sections of track in the storage area are spaced at a fraction under 44mm.

 

Next task is easing the station curve. I suspect this will prove more difficult than the storage loops.

 

Ian

[ianly]

Again, thanks for all the feedback and suggestions, they’re much appreciated.

 

I think below plan addresses the main issue identified with the one I uploaded on 22 July. 

• The storage loops have been shortened slightly, although the outermost remains longer than the others in order that it can accommodate my longest rain on straight section of track. Most, if not all, are at least 4thradius.
• Crossovers to facilitate bi-directional train movement have been incorporated at either end of the storage loops. That being said, I’m a tad concerned that I may have over complicated things by including them on station side of plan. I’ll hide both sets as best I can with an overbridge or tunnel, although suspending reality for a second or so might also be required. 
• The crossing and left turnout that provided branch line to outer main line has been replaced as per The Station Masters suggestion. Hopefully, I’ve not misunderstood.
• The majority of main-line station platform is curved at 60-inch radius. The branch line platform is slightly tighter but will only be used for 2-car DMUs.

Thanks

 

Ian

 

 

 

 

[Chimer]

That's looking good, there's even room to hint at an abandoned goods yard above the station, accessed  via a trailing point off the clockwise main just before the crossover.  The last curves into storage loops 1 & 7 (counting from the bottom) look a bit vicious though?

 

Cheers, Chris

[The Stationmaster]

Looks very  good and you definitely understood my point.  I wouldn't worry too much about the storage loop crossovers appearing where they have because they are trailing crossovers so do not look out of place and can easily be explained away if you need to.

[ianly]

Chris,

 

I'm not sure I understand exactly where you refer to re the abandoned goods yard. I've already shown the existing siding and head shunt between end of storage loops and station. I've seen videos were Network Rail have a Windhoff MPV parked up there.

 

I know there is an 'abandoned' siding with runaround loop leading off the branch that then runs parallel with main lines for around 250 metres. I believe that's what Phil mentioned in one of his posts. These are quite visible on Google Maps, albeit quite overgrown as you move east from the branch to mainline crossover. As a little cameo scene, I toyed with the idea of parking up an a few Turbot ballast wagons with ballast heap alongside but haven't pursued it any further.

 

BTW, if you have a look at Castle Cary on Raildar you'll see what I'm referring to above http://raildar.co.uk/map/CLC

 

Thanks, again for you comments.

 

[Harlequin]

I think it would be good to add some more operating potential to the layout and so bringing those sidings to life might be a very good idea. Since they do actually exist in reality it's only a small fiction to make them actively used rather than weed-covered and rusty. Who knows, maybe Network Rail will follow your lead!

 

A few other things:

• If it's accepted that the West FY crossover can appear on scene then how about moving it up into the position that the crossover would have been in the original junction? That would make some operations a bit easier, a bit closer to (alternate, less rationalised) reality and allows the exit to the FY to be simpler - plain track running under the double road bridge more like Castle Cary. You would have to use curved turnouts to move the crossover up.
• The FY East crossover could be in the curve and that would help to move it off-scene and avoid a reverse curve at the same time. (Same for the West FY crossover, in fact, if you wanted.)
• How about also moving the old goods yard siding up so that it's fully on scene and so that the spur backs onto the Up platform? That would also need curved turnouts, probably. At the moment the old goods track is half on scene, half off, and crammed against the edge of the room. Moving it up would help to release it from the backscene, make better use of the NW corner and make it more like reality.
• The branch crossover could start in the NE corner curve (again using a curved turnout) if you wanted to squeeze a bit more platform length or shift the platforms a bit more clockwise. (Only one curved turnout because the inner radius is too small for the through-route at that point.)
• The bridge on the East is very close to the backscene. That's fine if you can make it look OK (see Little Muddle!) but it might be worth trying to get a bit more gap somehow.

 

Edited July 27, 2020 by Harlequin

[The Stationmaster]

2 hours ago, ianly said:

Chris,

 

I'm not sure I understand exactly where you refer to re the abandoned goods yard. I've already shown the existing siding and head shunt between end of storage loops and station. I've seen videos were Network Rail have a Windhoff MPV parked up there.

 

I know there is an 'abandoned' siding with runaround loop leading off the branch that then runs parallel with main lines for around 250 metres. I believe that's what Phil mentioned in one of his posts. These are quite visible on Google Maps, albeit quite overgrown as you move east from the branch to mainline crossover. As a little cameo scene, I toyed with the idea of parking up an a few Turbot ballast wagons with ballast heap alongside but haven't pursued it any further.

 

BTW, if you have a look at Castle Cary on Raildar you'll see what I'm referring to above http://raildar.co.uk/map/CLC

 

Thanks, again for you comments.

 

The former dock siding is shown incorrectly on that link - it has never run behind the full length of the Up Main platform.  The retained siding on the Up Side, part of the old goods yard. was kept specifically for stabling and servicing on-track machines.  The Down sidings at the Frome end of the station appear to date from the time the long loops were added in 1943 and by the 1970s were occasionally used for stabling engineering trains and not much else although in the mid 1970s some coaches were stabled in them for use in a Royal Navy exercise as part of the admiral's Inspection of Yeovilton RNAS.  i seriously doubt if they have been used more than very occasionally since the most recent layout change in the 1980s/

 

Justification of the trailing crossovers is simple - just need only assume that SIMBIDS bi-directional signalling is in use on teh main lines either side of cary and you have the perfect reason  for long distance trains occasionally being seen using them.

[B McG]

Hi Ian,

 

Having endlessly planned with XTrackCAD I've done my share of fiddle yard designs and optimisations.  The last layout I had before dismantling had similar constraints, you'll definitely need 4 feet to start. Leaving aside the branch fiddle for the moment I've drafted out a nine road with 3 bidirectional, 3 up and 3 down.  Better still you could think about close to full length trains or if not double parking in each loop.  Minimum radius is 22 inches in old money, I used medium radius points to start the fan and curved points there after. Width wise it comes to just over 18 inches wide using medium radius point to set the gaps between each line.  If you or anyone else on this thread wants the file feel free to drop me a PM.

 

Cheers

Bryant

Edited July 27, 2020 by B McG
Missed the branch fiddle!

[ianly]

Bryant,

 

Thanks for your time and effort drafting above. My initial reaction was that 9 roads isn't enough, but then realised that you were including the curve within the overall length.

 

Your suggestion re full length trains probably wouldn't work for me as the overall size of my proposed layout is such that I don't think full length trains would look particularly convincing. Fortunately, GWR were testing the shorter HSTs as far back as April/May 2018, which is a good enough excuse for me to run the 2+4 sets. 

 

The longer roads (>11ft) you've shown would allow for storing two 2+4 HSTs or an 2+4 HST and a 5 car 800 IET. However, only one of these longer roads is bidirectional. I could use one of the other to store three or four car DMUs, but this this still leaves one. I hate giving up so easily on your idea though.

 

Ian

[ianly]

On 27/07/2020 at 14:22, Harlequin said:

I think it would be good to add some more operating potential to the layout and so bringing those sidings to life might be a very good idea. Since they do actually exist in reality it's only a small fiction to make them actively used rather than weed-covered and rusty. Who knows, maybe Network Rail will follow your lead!

 

 

In reality, the branch line and the redundant siding are relatively straight and parallel to each other. Ideally, I would like to achieve something similar or at least not as contrived as I've shown in attached plan.

 

On 27/07/2020 at 14:22, Harlequin said:

 

• If it's accepted that the West FY crossover can appear on scene then how about moving it up into the position that the crossover would have been in the original junction? That would make some operations a bit easier, a bit closer to (alternate, less rationalised) reality and allows the exit to the FY to be simpler - plain track running under the double road bridge more like Castle Cary. You would have to use curved turnouts to move the crossover up.
• The FY East crossover could be in the curve and that would help to move it off-scene and avoid a reverse curve at the same time. (Same for the West FY crossover, in fact, if you wanted.)

 

Having the FY crossovers off scene would be great. Sadly, I just couldn't get it to work. I suspect trying to maintain the length of the FY straights was/is what limits scope for moving the crossovers off scene. If I shortened the straights anymore, then some trains will be partially parked on a curve, which may result in having to increase space between roads.

 

On 27/07/2020 at 14:22, Harlequin said:

 

• How about also moving the old goods yard siding up so that it's fully on scene and so that the spur backs onto the Up platform? That would also need curved turnouts, probably. At the moment the old goods track is half on scene, half off, and crammed against the edge of the room. Moving it up would help to release it from the backscene, make better use of the NW corner and make it more like reality.

 

I've moved the siding turnout up a bit using curved point and moved it another inch or so from the wall. However, doing so has tightened the platform curve slightly, and not sure that I like how it has turned out. I know I'm under using the NW corner but other for some buildings and car park not seeing how else to use it. 

 

On 27/07/2020 at 14:22, Harlequin said:

 

• The bridge on the East is very close to the backscene. That's fine if you can make it look OK (see Little Muddle!) but it might be worth trying to get a bit more gap somehow.

 

Yes, way too close. I'll need to clean my spectacles ;-) I've moved it further from the wall and also shortened to something more realistic. Thanks for the Little Muddle tip, which certainly helps create the illusion of more space beyond the bridge. I'll definitely keep it in mind.

 

Thanks, gain for your comments and suggestions.

 

 

 

 

[ianly]

I spent time yesterday evening adjusting the plan in line with Chimer's suggestion of placing the station across the top section of the plan. Doing so allowed me to moved the old goods yards siding on west side of station more into view. However, I've dropped the the siding and runaround loop on east side for time being.  Likewise the bridge over river or road on far right of plan.

 

The main line and branch lines sections of the station are based on a 100 inch radius with the curves on either side being 36 inch radius. The old goods yard siding has a curve of approx 22 inch radius.

 

Is this plan worth further attention or should I continue with the last?

 

 

[Chimer]

I think the station position is better (well I would) but am not sure why you haven't gone with Bryant's FY arrangement which would do away with the need for the extraneous crossovers, though I would incorporate the one on the left hand side into the station throat using a double slip where the branch line turns off the inner circuit.  Another slip in the right hand throat in place of the back-to-back points might also save a useful inch or two?  Crude scribbles on your plan follow ......

 

 

 

Obviously this is just about a layout that might work, rather than an attempt to recreate an impression of anywhere specific.

 

Cheers, Chris

 

[Zomboid]

I'd stick with the station on a corner variant, but I'd move the FY reversal crossovers off-scene by moving the scenic breaks.

The siding with run-round ought to be longer, and the MPV siding would probably be in that area, rather than having two different engineers areas.

[woodenhead]

The station in the corner had a nicer flow to to the trackwork, when shifted right it lost that flow.

[The Stationmaster]

15 hours ago, ianly said:

I spent time yesterday evening adjusting the plan in line with Chimer's suggestion of placing the station across the top section of the plan. Doing so allowed me to moved the old goods yards siding on west side of station more into view. However, I've dropped the the siding and runaround loop on east side for time being.  Likewise the bridge over river or road on far right of plan.

 

The main line and branch lines sections of the station are based on a 100 inch radius with the curves on either side being 36 inch radius. The old goods yard siding has a curve of approx 22 inch radius.

 

Is this plan worth further attention or should I continue with the last?

 

 

This isn't bad - I think the inclusion of the Down sidings with runround loop un that position was 'messy' and filled up what was a nice open area.  But it all depends on your operating interest.  If you like what is basically a passenger train railway with use of the MPV siding for a bit of variety then this plan, and your earlier one, deliver just that and of course also deliver what goes on in the real world at Cary.  Do you want to capture essence of Castle Cary' or do you want  to play operate with a bit more variety in your trains?

 

In the real world freight traffic in any quantity left Castle Cary a good few years back when the Westbury -Yeovil trip ceased to run and when coal ceased to be dealt with at Yeovil Jcn although there was also the Exeter cement train passing through.  But these train did little or nothing at Cary.  Castle Cary was one of 'my' stations for over 4 years back in the 1970s and in that time I think we used the Down sidings no more than once or twice a year solely for engineering trains waiting to go to weekend jobs on site and the one occasion when one was used for an RN disaster exercise. (great fun but it only happened once).  The Up siding was used only for in-track machine maintenance.

 

It really comes back every time to what you want out of your layout, in terms of both 'look', essence of a real place, and operationally - and only you know that and that choice rests with you.