Jump to content
 

Help with new layout design


ianly
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • RMweb Premium

I think the MPV siding looked better in the previous version even though much of it had to be offscene. It has an uncomfortable kink in your latest plan and there doesn't seem to be quite enough room for the up platform.

 

The down sidings as you had them drawn were probably too short to stable a convincing train so they aren't much of a loss.   Perhaps a single longer siding in this location would be better?  

 

One small modification would be to lengthen the sidings in the branch fiddle yard in case you ever wanted to run loco hauled Weymouth trains.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

Thanks all, for your thoughts and suggestions, especially those relating to the option with station placed across top of plan. The consensus seems to be that the plan that placed the station on the left was better, and I tend to agree. 

 

My preference is for scheduling/watching the trains go by rather than shunting, and this had a bearing on the type of station best suited to this type of operation. As I mentioned a week or so back, the plan is a 'very' loose representation 'Castle Cary'. As a junction station, I think it provides scope for some interesting train movements, and with the FGW/GWR stock I already have should allow for an interesting variety of liveries stoping and passing through.  I've also found a few relatively recent videos on Youtube that show 'Arriva Cross Country' diverts. The diverts don't appear to be too common, but that doesn't prevent me from stretching reality a little. There isn't a huge amount of freight going through the real location. For example, ballast trains between Westbury and Fairfield can be seen on at least one occasion most days of the week (Realtime Trains shows at least one each day this week). Likewise, Network Rail Engineering trains are not uncommon. Still with freight, I've noted that intermodal container trains don't appear to use this line. I suspect that this may well be where I apply rule 1. 

 

The main changes from my previous plan with station on left side are:

  • The redundant sidings have been reworked.  At this point, I'm not sure how or even if I'll put them to use. However, one idea being a DMU siding similar to Westbury.
  • The hidden DMU sidings on branch line at bottom right have also been reworked and extended. I also added another siding. 

While I haven't shown any changes to the over bridges, I expect they'll need to be repositioned/realigned to hide the crossings.

 

If it doesn't work out as I hope or I get bored, I'll rip it up and start again.

 

 

1654375073_NoNameLayoutwith12LaneStorageYardRev6.png.f2333cccac1929e2d3853fc67b6c6449.png

 

  • Like 3
  • Round of applause 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I would really consider moving the scenic break on the right especially up a bit so the crossover is off scene, and then add a couple of dead end sidings in the corner.

 

This will give your branch line trains somewhere to run to, and with the crossover off scene it won't appear that every single branch train is running wrong line. Even without dear end sidings, branch trains have no alternative but to reverse in the outer track hidden sidings.

 

I would also move the crossover on the left of the plan off scene for similar reasons, but doing it to the right is more important IMO.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

On a modern track layout the visible presence of the crossovers isn't really a problem - they would simply be part of a reversible signalling/Simbids scheme so they would represent an additional feature.  So it would be quite logical to see trains using them to regain the right direction running line

  • Agree 1
  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
42 minutes ago, Zomboid said:

Yes, but in this design every single anticlockwise branch train has to arrive on scene running wrong line or be manhandled across in the FY.

 

It would bother me, but it's not my railway.

 

Very little scenic length would be lost by hiding the right hand crossover - I would use slightly rising ground and trees for the scenic break here anyway to avoid having an overbridge and underbridge so close together.  Or if absolutely necessary add crossovers on the straight within the fiddle yard to allow one or two roads to be used reversibly by short branch trains.

 

I suspect that at the left hand side hiding the crossover would be a lot more disruptive and it's better lived with.  

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

Thanks for the great feedback. 

 

How to deal with the crossovers facilitating bi-directional train movement from the storage roads has been exercising me since I first added them to the plan a week or so back. I even mentioned that the road bridges and crossovers would need to be repositioned/realigned when I described yesterdays plan. So, it no surprise that they are identified as needing further work.

 

I've not found a way to move the left side bi-directional crossovers off scene, at least not without reducing the length of the storage roads. Therefore, I'm satisfied that the location of cross-overs on left side remains as previously shown.

 

On the right side, I've made a few tweaks that have allowed me to move the crossover slightly closer to the curved turnouts in the storage area. Additionally, the road over-bridge has been replaced with a line to represent a scenic break that effectively hides the majority of the crossover. I've also moved the bridge over the road/river to create more space between it and the crossover. Unfortunately, I'm struggling a bit to visualise the form that the scenic break will take. A tunnel portal at end of a short cutting is one thought.  If anyone can point me to possible examples that would be appreciated.

 

BTW, I haven't ignored Zomboid's suggestion of dead end sidings for storing the DMUs originating from the branch line. It's just that I think adding the turnout to facilitate same would mean that the cross-overs would need to move even further from the storage roads. Anyway, I'm fairly confident that I can accommodate  up to three 2-car DMU's in any of the storage roads.

 

Again, thanks for all your comments and suggestions.

 

 

1940050876_NoNameLayoutwith12LaneStorageYardRev7.png.8bb415c4ee6cd9b64b1df5f1d3bcceee.png

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
39 minutes ago, ianly said:

On the right side, I've made a few tweaks that have allowed me to move the crossover slightly closer to the curved turnouts in the storage area.

 

I'm not convinced this is necessary and it seems to have resulted in some very sharp curves.  A few inches of lost senic space is a small price to pay if it buys better running.

 

41 minutes ago, ianly said:

Unfortunately, I'm struggling a bit to visualise the form that the scenic break will take. A tunnel portal at end of a short cutting is one thought.  If anyone can point me to possible examples that would be appreciated.

 

As I mentioned before I would just hide the exit with rising ground and trees in front of the railway.  The line could simply go through a hole in the sky but you would not see this from the operating well.  You don't need a bridge or tunnel so long as the trains go out of sight behind something.

Link to post
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, Flying Pig said:

I'm not convinced this is necessary and it seems to have resulted in some very sharp curves.  A few inches of lost senic space is a small price to pay if it buys better running

A Y into a curved turnout might give better results.

 

Or it might not.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
12 hours ago, Flying Pig said:

 

I'm not convinced this is necessary and it seems to have resulted in some very sharp curves.  A few inches of lost senic space is a small price to pay if it buys better running.

 

 

I didn't realise how tight the curves leading on to the curved turnouts had become. However, having just checked I see that the curve on the outer track has 19 inch radius and on inner track it's 17 inch.

 

If possible, some guidance on a realistic minimum radius into a streamline curved turnout would be helpful as I suspect a couple of others in storage yards might also be a bit tight

 

12 hours ago, Flying Pig said:

As I mentioned before I would just hide the exit with rising ground and trees in front of the railway.  The line could simply go through a hole in the sky but you would not see this from the operating well.  You don't need a bridge or tunnel so long as the trains go out of sight behind something.

 

Apologies, I misread your post.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
58 minutes ago, ianly said:

Apologies, I misread your post.

 

No need! I didn't make myself particularly clear.

 

As to curves, 17" is a shade below second radius.  Apart from the short curves at the end of the fiddle yard, I think your minima are 30" on the inside of curved points.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

You've got enough space to keep a reasonably generous minimum radius if you want and that would help not only with smooth running but would allow you to close-couple some of your stock.

 

 

A sensible minimum radius might be 610mm - the radius of a Peco Small turnout.

 

I think that your closely packed storage roads might be causing both the problem with tight radii and forcing the crossovers up into the scenic area. If you could space them a bit more (and you seem to have the space to do that) then the curves could be part of the storage capacity and you could move some of the fan turnouts further down. It might also be worth thinking about reducing the number of storage roads and/or shortening them because stacking trains in the same road can become annoying.

 

Edited by Harlequin
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
20 hours ago, Zomboid said:

Yes, but in this design every single anticlockwise branch train has to arrive on scene running wrong line or be manhandled across in the FY.

 

It would bother me, but it's not my railway.

So what?   We have heard that the layout is inspired loosely by Castle Cary and that is exactly what happens at Castle Cary, every day.    What was, in traditional terms, wrong direction running has been happening in various places wayn back in BR days and it's been happening at Castle Cary for over 30 years t.   It was happening at our local branch junction from the early 1970s onwards until the train service involved ended a few years back although it still happens (but not this year) for a busy special traffic event every year.

 

The train is not running wrong line - it can't logically run  wrong line on a piece of railway which is bi-directionally signalled.  A quick check of what actually happens at Cary shows that Up Branch trains normally run up the Down Main at Castle Cary except when they are crossing a Down train in which case they run via the platform loop, Platform No.3.

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
22 hours ago, Zomboid said:

I would really consider moving the scenic break on the right especially up a bit so the crossover is off scene, and then add a couple of dead end sidings in the corner.

 

This will give your branch line trains somewhere to run to, and with the crossover off scene it won't appear that every single branch train is running wrong line. Even without dear end sidings, branch trains have no alternative but to reverse in the outer track hidden sidings.

 

I would also move the crossover on the left of the plan off scene for similar reasons, but doing it to the right is more important IMO.

 

Sorry, @Zomboid, I don't understand this post at all :scratchhead:.  An anti-clockwise branch line train originating from either set of storage loops will appear from the right-hand scenic break on the correct (inner) line, having crossed over if coming from the outer loops.  It can then use either side of the island platform before disappearing off down the branch to the sidings marked "hidden DMU storage".  On the way back it uses the inside road of the island platform and either terminates and reverses, or continues to the outer storage loops on the correct (outer) line, crossing over in the right-hand station throat.  What's "wrong line" about any of that?  Or what am I missing?

 

I can see the ability for an anti-clockwise branch train to use the "main line" side of the island platform makes it possible for branch trains to cross in the station, but not sure that makes it worth having the crossover between anti-clockwise main and branch in the left-hand throat - or alternatively why this isn't combined with the trailing crossover between the main lines using a slip?

 

As always, I'm writing without reference to the real-life trackwork at Castle Cary (or any other possible prototype station), or knowing how important it is to get close to that.  Just thinking about model operations ....

 

Cheers, Chris

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok...

A train off the branch (if running on the left hand line, which you'd imagine would be the norm for most trains) runs through the station on the inner platform, then crosses over east of the station and then into the outer set of hidden sidings.

 

It then reverses and runs back up the branch. To do so it has to arrive on scene at the scenic break running on the right hand line and then immediately cross over (or it could carry on running on the right hand line until the station crossover).

 

This would bother me and I would want it to be able to arrive on scene on the left hand line, because even in bi di signalled areas left hand running is the norm in this country. Hence I would want to hide the crossover just at the scenic break on the eastern edge of the layout.

 

The direction of trains through the station wouldn't bother me because I know how Castle Cary works. It's just that 12-18" at the eastern scenic break.

 

I really don't know how to make myself any clearer, and since this isn't my layout I'll just leave it there.

Edited by Zomboid
  • Like 1
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
17 hours ago, ianly said:

Thanks for the great feedback. 

 

How to deal with the crossovers facilitating bi-directional train movement from the storage roads has been exercising me since I first added them to the plan a week or so back. I even mentioned that the road bridges and crossovers would need to be repositioned/realigned when I described yesterdays plan. So, it no surprise that they are identified as needing further work.

 

I've not found a way to move the left side bi-directional crossovers off scene, at least not without reducing the length of the storage roads. Therefore, I'm satisfied that the location of cross-overs on left side remains as previously shown.

 

On the right side, I've made a few tweaks that have allowed me to move the crossover slightly closer to the curved turnouts in the storage area. Additionally, the road over-bridge has been replaced with a line to represent a scenic break that effectively hides the majority of the crossover. I've also moved the bridge over the road/river to create more space between it and the crossover. Unfortunately, I'm struggling a bit to visualise the form that the scenic break will take. A tunnel portal at end of a short cutting is one thought.  If anyone can point me to possible examples that would be appreciated.

 

BTW, I haven't ignored Zomboid's suggestion of dead end sidings for storing the DMUs originating from the branch line. It's just that I think adding the turnout to facilitate same would mean that the cross-overs would need to move even further from the storage roads. Anyway, I'm fairly confident that I can accommodate  up to three 2-car DMU's in any of the storage roads.

 

Again, thanks for all your comments and suggestions.

 

 

1940050876_NoNameLayoutwith12LaneStorageYardRev7.png.8bb415c4ee6cd9b64b1df5f1d3bcceee.png

 

 

 

 

I think that you have two distinct options here.

1) Given the number of loops in the hidden sidings, you don't need to reverse the longer trains and you have a crossover centrally located in the middle roads to turn just the shorter trains (Branch DMUs).

2) You go away from the loops concept and have just two through roads  on the mainline with two sets of terminating sidings so that these trains can reverse easily. This reduces the amount of pointwork and you create extra length for the sidings by making use of the corners.

We explored this second option for another planned layout here but I can't remember which one it was. 

 

Another question. Is the branch line going to be scenic (in front of the main line storage)? If not, I would be inclined to put in a run round on the branch storage so that loco+coaches, Weymouth excursion traffic, could be run although that would probably be top-and-tail these days. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
1 hour ago, Chimer said:

 

I can see the ability for an anti-clockwise branch train to use the "main line" side of the island platform makes it possible for branch trains to cross in the station, but not sure that makes it worth having the crossover between anti-clockwise main and branch in the left-hand throat - or alternatively why this isn't combined with the trailing crossover between the main lines using a slip?

 

As always, I'm writing without reference to the real-life trackwork at Castle Cary (or any other possible prototype station), or knowing how important it is to get close to that.  Just thinking about model operations ....

 

Cheers, Chris

 

Please note that for its last two decades British Rail, and all its successor organisations have avoided complex trackwork like slips (single and double) unless absolutely essential by way of physical obstructions because they are (1) pain in the backside to maintain, (ii) cost more to install and (iii) Usually require bespoke parts rather than standard Switch and Crossing components.

 

Traditionally single slips and diamond crossings were liked because they minimised the need for things like FPLs as fewer point ends were traversed in the facing direction - but these days virtually every single standard point operating system (motor driven, hydraulic, etc) will come with an integral FPL by default. Yes this means there may be extra costs with regards to signalling (more wiring, more relays and more complicated software) - but signalling kit generally lasts up to 40 years with little intervention while a diamond crossing getting heavy use will probably need changing every 5 years. It is therefore more economic to provide complex signalling than complex trackwork in the longer run!

 

 

Edited by phil-b259
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

Since the discussion has exploded again, I'm going to repeat myself: the right hand crossover is easy to hide with scenery and/or additional crossovers could be provided within the fiddle yard for short branch trains, but it probably isn't worth the disruption of trying to move the left hand crossover.

 

The left hand crossover may not be used frequently if trains are not regularly reversed - this is entirely down to how the OP decides to operate the layout.  Branch trains have to reverse of course.

 

The important issue with the plan as it stands is to review the curves at each end of the fiddle yard in terms of minimum radius and smooth running.

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

Again, thanks for feedback. Hopefully, I haven't misunderstood same. 

 

The main changes from last nights plan are:

 

  • Increased spacing between roads in storage area to 48mm and shortened four roads in each direction by 100mm. Doing so means that only one road in anti-clockwise group has a curve radius less than 610mm between the last curved turnout and straight. Most are greater than 610mm.
  • Radius of  curves at start and end of storage area are 610mm or greater.
  • The right hand crossover has been pulled fully into the scenic area to create space for a left hand turnout giving access to two hidden DMU storage roads. My logic here being that some DMUs are going to / coming from a different location than the others trains. It also avoids stacking DMUs in one storage road. For now, the plan shows the turnout half in/out of storage area but this may change. The crossover will be disguised as described by Simon (Flying Pig).
  • The branch line in front of the hidden storage area is scenic up to the red line to left of three-way turnout. I've added appropriate text and a red line to indicate same.

Note that the tightest curve radius in scenic area is 762mm, but most are much greater than this.

 

 

482531907_NoNameLayoutwith12LaneStorageYardRev8.png.88e6ab228fcefd3c84735649b7fd907e.png

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

If you are using long storage roads for DMUs, and want to reduce stacking, a crossover half way down provides extra flexibility. A few of my storage roads have them, although mine is single-ended but the concept should still work to an extent. It means space to store 5 DMUs on 3 storage roads, with the three at the back all able to exit via the centre track, but keeps each track full length if I run longer trains.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

Thanks for the suggestion JDW. Placing a crossover between the up/down lanes is  relatively easy. While it's only two roads theres enough for up to four DMUs. The other dedicated DMU storage also helps.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...