Help with new layout design

[FraserClarke]

On 17/07/2019 at 20:57, ianly said:

At Walligford end there is an additional siding that seems to be used to store wagons and such like. Apparently, they've borrowed/hired a GWR 0-6-0 Pannier tank on a few occasions. Since there is no link to the mainline the Pannier Tank must have been lifted onto the track by crane. May be that's what Fraser was referring to.

 

It's less dramatic than that usually... A lowloader, a winch, and some inset track usually...  Real-life equivalent of a loco cassette I guess! :-)   Example below.

 

 

Mainline connections are relatively rare, especially for 'smaller' heritage lines.  The Princes Risborough example is slightly odd in fact, as the bay is part of the national network, which CPRR are allowed to run into (which I believe gives the odd situation that CPRR has to lock all the toilet doors before they come into Princes Risborough, as they are running over network rail metals and their Mk1 coaches are 'direct to track' rather than having retention tanks...).  But if that's what you want then go for it!!  Plenty of examples exist. I agree with the others that it makes the operation a bit more interesting.  You can also always have the odd 'special' parking on the branch overnight... The Cholsey->Wallingford line - when connected - was apparently used as stabling for the royal train occasionally. 

 

Quote

> I notice that Fraser's plan has the main double track circuit only visible in scenery for one-quarter of it's

> length, BTW.

 

Yes I noticed that, but it's not necessarily how I intend to portray the scenics.

 

I just don't like seeing the corners :-) 

 

Another one, going further away from "West of Reading", is Eridge at the end of the Spa Valley line.  Here the heritage line runs parallel to the (now singled) mainline, and both stop on opposite sides of Eridge station (I'm pretty sure there is no connection between the running lines).  https://www.google.co.uk/maps/search/Eridge/@51.0893773,0.1999344,145m/data=!3m1!1e3

 

The interesting bit here is that there is no run-around.  So a second engine is stabled in the bay platform or headshunt, and once the first engine arrives with train, it backs on, couples up, and takes the train back to Tunbridge whlist the first engine retires to the headshunt...   Could be an interesting option if you want a bit more 'involvement' in the operation on the heritage side?  Tracks below are based on Eridge, but you could simplify down to a single headshunt if you wanted.  Maybe the headshunt could have some basic loco servicing facilities (though on a heritage line, these would be at the main site only probably).
 

Engine #2 waits in bay (or headshunt)

Engine #1 arrives with train

Engine #2 runs out. Engine #1 uncouples

Engine #2 backs down and couples up

Engine #2 releases train. Engine #1 waits for returning train...

 

 

Edited July 18, 2019 by FraserClarke

[Zomboid]

10 hours ago, ianly said:

Thanks all, above info is really helpful

 

Zoboid,

 

Unfortunately, I didn't understand what you meant in your earlier post, hence not following up on it. However, now that it's been explained, especially the references to Google Maps and Tracksy I think I get the post being made.

 

In first track plan "Princes Risborough" I've copied what I think are the relevant track arrangement directly from Google Maps.  In the second track plan 'Princes Risborough (Flipped)' I've flipped it so that it's on the inside rather than outside of the layout. This shows the branch going into the bay platform and linking into the mainline. I've also left out the loops in the station bay, but these will be put back in later. I'm also assuming that the through line is up/down. Hopefully, I've interpreted all the info shared above correctly.

 

 

You've actually used the Aylesbury bay there - the Chinnor line is on the other side of the formation, but actually that doesn't matter. The key elements that I was getting at were the heritage line interface and the multiple tracks through the station. Having been built recently I think there's a lot of bi-directional lines, but the normal running arrangement from west to east (top to bottom on your first diagram) is: Heritage line [platform] Down Main, Up Main, Up Loop [platform], Aylesbury bay.

So it gives the opportunity for up trains to overtake. The crossovers either side of the station allow down trains to overtake (and also use the up platform), but those moves would conflict with movements on the up line so I imagine it's not so common.

 

Anyway, I just thought it was a neat track arrangement that would have decent play value.

[The Johnster]

At Wellington (Salop), the Much Wenlock branch train arrived at the bay on the down side, detrained passengers and performed station work, then set back into a carriage siding which was on a gradient rising away from the station.  The loco uncoupled and before drawing away, the guard's handbrake was securely wound on.  The loco then departed and stood out of the way, while the guard released the vacuum brakes. leaving the train held on the handbrake.  When he had the road back into the bay, he released the handbrake and the coaches rolled into position under gravity.  The loco then coupled to what was now the front end of the train, the vacuum pipes were coupled and the vacuum blown off, so that a brake test could be performed before the next departure.  I think I remember an article back in the 80s about this move being modelled.

[JDW]

Maybe I'm a bit late to the party here, I see your plan is developing already. But the first thing I thought when I looked at your original and the first few versions was that instead of 4 tracks, or two tracks with loops into platforms, I'd go for a pair of island platforms so that you then have 4 platform faces. I'm not sure how prototypical this would be for your area, but it would allow more "believable" storage of trains on the scenic part. I.E.:  <Up slow> PLATFORM <Up fast> <Down Fast> PLATFORM <Down slow>

With just two platforms, you have one that can stop in the station, and while it's there another that can then only overtake. With island platforms, you have an excuse for trains to remain in the platform for a while on display whilst you sit back and watch or run another.  This would also lend itself to adding a goods loop on the outside of one or both main lines, which again would allow you to have an extra train "stored" on the scenic section at times, awaiting a clear road in the loop. Effectively this gives you a bit more "storage" space and flexibility. 

 

One more question, apologies if I missed the answer already, but rather than having a lift out section over the access, if that bit is reduced to just two tracks it could narrow down to as little as 6 inches wide for a couple of feet, it would save the hassle of a lifting section. With thought if this is part of the scenic section, it could be something like a low river bridge, with just the width of the bridge modelled, the scenery either side tapering down to the bridge width over the access.

[Zomboid]

Because it's fun, here is the essence of Princes Risborough, flipped to fit in the configuration you've got.

I haven't bothered with making the platforms especially long, if you pursue something like this then extend them to however long you want I guess (crossovers could use curved points if that helps, and no reason why the station couldn't be on a fairly gentle curve). The "Aylesbury" line could carry on round to the FY and you could run the Aylesbury - London service as well as the branch shuttle, or just shuttle a bubble car/ 2 car unit to and from a hidden reversing spot in the corner, or it could be left off entirely without losing much. I've also shown the up & down splitting the way they do on the way to Saunderton, which is of course entirely optional.

The heritage platform could have another siding or 2 if you want. There's a carriage siding at Alton behind the run round, so that kind of thing is entirely plausible.

[ianly]

Again, all thanks for your ideas/suggestions. Holidays and recovering from surgical procedure have kept me away from this longer than I hoped.

 

I worked up the suggestion by Zomboid which provided for some interesting and challenging possibilities.  I even cleared out the garage roof-space in which I intend to construct the layout. So, some real progress has been made. However, after going back through the thread again I decided to follow up on 'The Johnster's' suggestion to look at the Reading - Newbury section of the GWR mainline. I also looked at how I could make better use of the space I have for the fiddle yard, and whether I could include a storage area below the main baseboard.

 

My plans to date show the use of Peco Streamline curved points for the fiddle yard, but these use a lot of space. Therefore, my latest plan uses Peco SeTrack curve points, but only  for the fiddle yard. Since the software I use to draw the plan doesn't make shaping Peco Flexi track particularly easy I used Peco Setrack 3 and 4 radius curves. This is for the plan only. When laying the track for real, the curve radius will be much larger in scenic areas.

 

Getting back to 'The Johnster's' suggestion. Newbury station has 4 tracks and offers many of my original objectives, especially the mix of passenger and freight traffic. It therefore, makes for a useful template, albeit much longer than my space allows. So, modelling it isn't realistic. Nevertheless, I've tried to replicate the point work as best as possible to allow for the DMU that terminates at Newbury. Also, to minimise the amount of space used by the points. I've made use of two double slips. I'm not sure how wise this is. While I've kept the heritage line in it's also doubling up as the branch that goes to Newbury Racecourse in real world. I'm still undecided as to whether to keep or drop the dedicated heritage line. I've also shown the branch / heritage line looping back onto the mainline, but I'm not sure whether thats a wise move or not.

 

I've still not shown any scenic content. That being said, I hope to include a river with bridge on either the right or left side of layout. I also intend to put a road over the track as east side of the main station as per the real Newbury. I'm still scratching my head as to how best to hide the west side of the main station. Another road bridge or elevated town section are possibilities, but any ideas would be welcome.

 

[ianly]

Even though the layout plan will only serve as a template, the tight curves on the top right corner really irritated me. So, I spent best part of an hour this morning tweaking and cajoling the flexitrack to the point that I now have curves with a radius of just over 3 feet.  However, the larger radius curves mean that the heritage line as draw in yesterday's plan is no longer achievable, and has been removed for now. That being said, the majority of the line and small station remain as a branch, and also benefit from a larger radius curve. I also realised that while the westward platform loop is fine for a 2 or 3 car DMU it was slightly too short for a 2+4 HST. The only way I could squeeze in the pointwork to allow the platform to extend to the right was to use a double/single slip ? ( showing my lack of knowledge). Hopefully, the changes I made improve things rather than make them worse.

 

 

[TonyMay]

On 29/08/2019 at 03:11, ianly said:

Even though the layout plan will only serve as a template, the tight curves on the top right corner really irritated me. So, I spent best part of an hour this morning tweaking and cajoling the flexitrack to the point that I now have curves with a radius of just over 3 feet.  However, the larger radius curves mean that the heritage line as draw in yesterday's plan is no longer achievable, and has been removed for now. That being said, the majority of the line and small station remain as a branch, and also benefit from a larger radius curve. I also realised that while the westward platform loop is fine for a 2 or 3 car DMU it was slightly too short for a 2+4 HST. The only way I could squeeze in the pointwork to allow the platform to extend to the right was to use a double/single slip ? ( showing my lack of knowledge). Hopefully, the changes I made improve things rather than make them worse.

  

 

 

 

The way you've drawn it, with up-down and bidi lines into the throat, the bay for the branch should be on the same side as the branch.  I don't think any railway engineer would do this, ever.  Every time a branchline train arrives or leaves, it eats into valuable capacity on the mainline, resulting in a reduced number of paths on the mainline.

 

You've also got a facing crossover straight from the mainline into that terminal bay platform.  A traditional railway engineer would never do that for safety reasons, so it must be a modern addition.  

 

Also, I know Bangor exists, but a modern railway engineer would also look at that trackwork and try to rationalise it by removing the through roads and plainlining the main lines through the platforms, leaving a 25ish foot gap between the tracks. 

 

It doesn't look like a real modern railway.

[Zomboid]

Some stations do have through, so that's not really an issue. A ladder of double slips though, you'd only see that on the low speed approach to a major terminus (Waterloo for example).

 

The layout at the moment looks a bit like Paddock Wood. Check that one out on Google maps etc.

[Titanius Anglesmith]

4 hours ago, TonyMay said:

 

 

The way you've drawn it, with up-down and bidi lines into the throat, the bay for the branch should be on the same side as the branch.  I don't think any railway engineer would do this, ever.  Every time a branchline train arrives or leaves, it eats into valuable capacity on the mainline, resulting in a reduced number of paths on the mainline.

 

In general I’d agree, but Grays springs to mind as an exception in the modern era. There is a bay platform at Grays that was built to serve the Ockendon branch, and as you might expect it is on the same side as the branch. However over the years the Ockendon branch has taken on more importance than the erstwhile mainline route through Rainham. The modern service now runs the “through” services via the Ockendon branch and uses the bay to terminate trains from Rainham. The result is that the paths cross. 

[ianly]

Tony,

 

Thanks for your comments.

 

As I mentioned in my first post "I’m looking to model an imaginary location on the GWR mainline from Reading westwards." That being said, I am keen that I don't draft a station/track arrangement and approach that  doesn't/wouldn't exist in the modern era anywhere on the GWR mainline. A few options have been suggested, and I also spent a good deal of time on Google Maps and Youtube checking pretty much every GWR mainline station from London to Penzance. The plan you've commented on is based on Newbury, although the link between the bay platform and the branch does not exist. The link, as drawn, is my attempt (cheat) to extend the cross movements that occur on the fast/slow lines. I wouldn't have even considered it otherwise.  I've attached a copy of Google map for east side of Newbury station.

 

Also, if your interested, this link should take you to Google Map of Newbury station.https://www.google.com/maps/place/Newbury/@51.39765,-1.325034,1042m/data=!3m2!1e3!4b1!4m5!3m4!1s0x4876a6212eb08545:0x1fd94a42f2c843f5!8m2!3d51.39765!4d-1.32284

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited August 30, 2019 by ianly

[ianly]

5 hours ago, Zomboid said:

Some stations do have through, so that's not really an issue. A ladder of double slips though, you'd only see that on the low speed approach to a major terminus (Waterloo for example).

 

The layout at the moment looks a bit like Paddock Wood. Check that one out on Google maps etc.

 

I used double slips in attempt to compress the crossovers that do exist at east side of Newbury station. I acknowledge that they may not be the best/correct choice, but I'm not sure how else to fit everything into the available space.

 

I checked Paddock Wood and see the similarities.

[TonyMay]

On 30/08/2019 at 22:07, Titanius Anglesmith said:

 

In general I’d agree, but Grays springs to mind as an exception in the modern era. There is a bay platform at Grays that was built to serve the Ockendon branch, and as you might expect it is on the same side as the branch. However over the years the Ockendon branch has taken on more importance than the erstwhile mainline route through Rainham. The modern service now runs the “through” services via the Ockendon branch and uses the bay to terminate trains from Rainham. The result is that the paths cross. 

 

You can invent stories to justify pretty much anything.  In real life pretty much anything occrus somewhere.  It's been often suggested that models should represent the typical not the atypical, and I agree.  The problem is that in model form, a not-based-on-anywhere-in-particular station, with a bizarre invented story to justify something that looks completely wrong, breaks the illusion, and make the modeller look less than completely knowledgeable about the subject.  But if you're OK with that...

[Harlequin]

45 minutes ago, TonyMay said:

 

You can invent stories to justify pretty much anything.  In real life pretty much anything occrus somewhere.  It's been often suggested that models should represent the typical not the atypical, and I agree.  The problem is that in model form, a not-based-on-anywhere-in-particular station, with a bizarre invented story to justify something that looks completely wrong, breaks the illusion, and make the modeller look less than completely knowledgeable about the subject.  But if you're OK with that...

You're being very negative, Tony.

 

Can you suggest some improvements, possibly with a diagram?

 

[Tallpaul69]

Agreed Phil!

 

Come on Tony where's your plan!!

 

However, I do agree with Tony's earlier comment about the position of the bay.

If you move it to the same side of the layout as the branch, then you can use its original position for a down bay as per Newbury. This increases the number and variety of trains you can run by copying the short trains to Southampton, (even though they had stopped running by your chosen era?)

 

Keep planning, also you ought to be thinking in terms of a first attempt at a time table? Then you will have an idea of the capacity you need in the loops and what stock you need.

 

Keep up the good work

Cheers

Paul

 

 

[ianly]

Thanks, all for your comments and suggestions. Having given it a good deal of thought, my preference, at this time, is to retain the DMU bay. However, I have removed the branch and, for now, parked the idea of a heritage line. Hopefully, these omissions address the concerns expressed about the station throat in earlier posts. The layout plan that follows is far from finished.

 

As drawn, the station throat on east side is as the Newbury prototype, albeit compressed by using double slips. I've checked a number of YouTube videos and am fairly satisfied that my understanding of how the east side works is correct. That is, the bay (Platform 3) is used for DMU services between Reading and Newbury. Given space limitations, the west side of the station is still work in progress. I don’t expect it to be prototypical of Newbury or anywhere else along the Reading to Westbury line.

 

Other changes I’ve made to the earlier layout plans include taking the 4 station lanes on the west side back into the fiddle yard. Phil suggested this in a post on page 2. I’ve also increased the fiddle yard to 10 lanes. Doing this provides 2 more lanes than previous plans and is split 2 lanes up and 2 lanes down for trains that will stop at the station. The other six lanes (3 up and 3 down) are for through trains such as HSTs and freight.

 

In addition to above, I’ve incorporated Streamline curved points to the fiddle yard on the right side of the plan. I’d also like to use these points on the left side but am struggling to make it work. I’m conscious that the tracks on left side of the plan needs to shift right, possibly creating some space for on-scene loco and hopper parking (i.e. a very much scaled down version of sidings at west end of Westbury station). Therefore, until I come up with an arrangement that doesn’t shorten the length of the fiddle yard, I’ve kept the SeTrack curved points. Any thoughts on how Streamline curved points the sidings could be worked in would be greatly appreciated. 

 

I've not managed to obtain timetables but have spent some time reviewing both passenger and freight traffic between Reading and Westbury on YouTube. I also checked out the current timetables on ‘Realtime Trains’. With the exception of the HSTs being replaced by IET 800s and some EMUs in lieu of DMUs, the passenger traffic appears to align with the videos. The freight traffic is predominately aggregates and ballast from Westbury, and again seems to align with the videos. I also noticed a good mix of loco types and liveries, which should help to keep things interesting.

 

Electrification at Newbury was completed in late 2018. So, allowing some float I could probably stretch the period I'm hoping to model to late 2017 or early 2018. The benefit of doing so being that the liveries of GWR passenger trains included FGW blue (DMU and HST), GWR green (HST, DMUs and 800s) plus some HSTs with mixed rakes of GWR green and FGW blue.

 

 

Edited September 23, 2019 by ianly

[The Johnster]

Two issues occur to me, firstly, the turnout across the join of the lifting hatch, at the anti-clockwise exit from the fiddle yard.  I'd move it one way or t'other to clear the joint by an inch or so; any potential change of track level so close to the crossing vee is asking for trouble IMHO and lateral play may also be a factor here.

 

Secondly, and this is very much a matter of taste and personal opinion, I don't like the straight section through the station leading to the very sharp curvature in the top left corner.  The look, and the running, would I respectfully submit be improved by incorporating a more gentle curve through the station; it would prevent the effect of fast through trains 'whiplashing' off the curve and allow you to incorporate a realistic transition curve into it.  The left hand end of it where it approaches that end of the fiddle yard could still be fairly sharp, but the transition curve would make it look less obviously so.  Another advantage is that it creates more space in the extreme top left corner so that you can ease the curve on the gradient accessing the lower storage, which will be useful to any loco climbing it.  This is of course a departure from the real Newbury...

 

This lower storage area is odd to my view as well, because as drawn you can only access it in the clockwise direction from the clockwise 'slow' line.  How do you get trains out of the lower storage area on to the anti clockwise roads?  As drawn, they have to run 'wrong road' through the fiddle yard where I guess a run around move for loco hauled freight and a reversal for the rest sends them back out on to the clockwise slow; the anti-clockwise roads cannot be reached at all and the clockwise fast cannot be accessed at all.  I suspect the running around even to get trains on to the clockwise slow will become onerous, and result in trains being abandoned in the low level storage.

 

A crossover from the clockwise slow to the anticlockwise fast will enable trains from the underworld to access the anticlockwise direction, and add interest to the operation as it introduces a conflicting movement.  

 

 

Edited September 24, 2019 by The Johnster

[Tallpaul69]

This plan is developing nicely, but I agree with the comments about the point on the access hatch, the radius of the top left corner curves, and the connection from the incline to the lower level.

 

I also think you should try to reduce the gradient to the lower level, 1/50 is quite steep, particularly on a curve in the top right corner.

You may have to reduce the radius on the right hand mainline curves slightly so that the incline does not have to get below the level of the main tracks until you reach the far side of the layout. 1/30 would be much better for your locos.  You can hide the incline being beside the mainlines with a cutting on the outside of the main tracks.

 

Keep at it!

 

Cheers

Paul

[ianly]

Thanks for the great feedback. Hopefully, below will address some of the comments. 

 

1. Location of point over edge of lifting hatch - this due to me ordering the layers wrongly in Photoshop (note to self - check plans before uploading). The larger square represents the lifting hatch below baseboard level (i.e. it's at floor level in layout room). The lifting hatch at baseboard level doesn't need to extend to the perimeter wall, thus allowing the track along this section to be laid on a fixed section of baseboard extending about 150mm from the wall. That being said, the final position of the point and dimensions of the baseboard level hatch may change up to or even during construction.

 

2.  Slope of decline too steep - I think this may be due to the nomenclature I show. The slope as indicated in the software is 1:50 on straight sections of track and 1:44 on the curved sections.  Also, according to the software, the measured length of track over which the decline occurs is just over 7.5m and the fall is 0.15m (i.e 2%).  The remaining track making up access to the lower storage area is still very much work in progress. I'm planning for it to be 150mm below the main baseboard, although I have the space and height to increase both whilst still maintaining a slope of 2%. I'd love to include a reverse lop, but that might be stretching things a little too far. We'll see how it goes.

 

3. Left side of station a departure from Newbury -  as mentioned in my previous post, the left side of the station is still work in progress, and as I hope to run the four tracks back to the fiddle yard, it isn't going to based on Newbury. That being said, I have a version of the plan already drawn with 45 inch radius curves in station but it still looks a bit tight.

 

Ian

[The Johnster]

Any appreciable curvature in the confines of the station platform area will mitigate against it being Newbury, but assuming the intention is to represent Newbury as accurately as possible, scale rendition being impossible in your space, or in other words to have a layout 'inspired by' Newbury and the West of England main line, my impression is that it is a credible attempt at the latter, especially as the real Newbury does not have a branch emerging from the very bowels of the earth just to the west of it...

 

150mm headroom for the lower level is sufficient clearance for storage, but not by a large margin.  If the 150mm is the headroom from the lower baseboard level to the underside of the upper baseboard framing, then underlay and track cuts into it with regard to vehicle height, and as these are storage loops/sidings, you will need to be able to lift the stock clear of stock on the next road, so will need space for both it and your hands.  You will, I believe, benefit from making this headroom as high as you can manage without excessive gradients; I appreciate this is a balancing act!

 

Similarly, if manual handling of stock in the upper level fiddle yard is needed, then a little extra room between roads is handy, especially if you've got chubby little fingers like me, but again space is at a premium and some of the 'inner' curves are already a bit tight.

[ianly]

For various reasons I had to park developing a track plan until a few weeks back. Nevertheless, I have been keeping a close eye on some of the ongoing projects of other forum members, especially those of a similar size to that I have available (i.e. 3.6 by 3 metres or 12ft by 9ft 10in in old money). Based on some of the comments made about my earlier ideas and repeated in multiple other threads, i've decided that inclines/declines and low level storage are probably best avoided. As such, scenic and storage areas will be on the same level. Since I'd much prefer to keep storage off scene, it will be for fixed formations (6 lanes for each direction). With appropriate automation I think I can achieve a reasonable amount of variation and interest with the 12 - 14 trains that I can store.

 

My original plan to incorporate a heritage station is no more. Likewise, the track plans I'd shared previously. Also, since my era (2017 onwards) and geographic region (GWR) had already been decided upon I've purchased some of the locos and rolling stock (e.g. DMUs, 2+4 HSTs with mix of FGW and GWR liveries, 800 IET, Class 66's for stone trains, etc).

 

Some explanation on the new track plan.

• Running length in scenic area is approximately 21ft
• The plan is a 'very' loose representation Castle Cary as I think it provides scope for some interesting train movements. However, I am definitely not modelling Castle Cary.
• I've curved the station around a corner of the baseboard to maximise running length in scenic area. 
• There is scope for platforms to be approximately 72 inches in length, which is sufficient for 2+4 HST and 800 IET
• The main lines through the station use curves with approximately 45 inch radius.
• The line indicated as a branch has a slightly tighter radius, but is still in excess of 40 inches. The other curves in scenic area are at least 36 inch radius.
• I plan to use PECO Code 75 concrete sleeper track in scenic area and Code 100 in storage area (only because I have a box of 25 lengths). The turnouts used in storage area are Code 100 curved long radius with Code 100 to 75 transition pieces were same interface with track in scenic area. Any opinions on the mix of Code 75 and 100 would be welcome.
• The main storage area will be located behind a lightweight removable panel that incorporates a back-scene image.
• I've shown the branch line ending with a hidden area for a One and Two-car DMU. Whether this created as 'cutting' or is routed into the main storage area via a tunnel portal is still to be decided.  The DMU's may shuttle back and forth to station or onto the main line. I expect that some form of automation (e.g. DCCconcept's Digital Shuttle) will be used here.
• The scenic section between the over bridge and tunnel portal on right side of plan may end up with a viaduct or bridge over a river.
• The baseboards will, for the most part, be flat. However, I may drop some sections of the baseboard frontage to add more scenic interest. How and with what are still to be decided. Any ideas would be welcome.

Hopefully, above explains my ideas, and happy to answer any questions if I've missed something (pretty much guaranteed that I have).

 

Also, any comments/help would be much appreciated.

 

 

[DCB]

Its a great layout for showing your mates your stock or having trains running round while you work on  something else, but operationally it has little potential.   

I would have some extra crossovers at the ends of the hidden sidings so the operation was for the trains to go Hidden siding to Hidden siding in one direction and then for the next journey to be in the other direction, other wise you end up with clockwise trains and anticlockwise trains which makes running very samey.   With diesels you can have gradients and DCC.

[Harlequin]

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!

Edited July 23, 2020 by Harlequin

[Chimer]

I'm sure we've been here before in another thread recently (!) but instead of playing around with crossovers to allow reversals in the FY I would try this way (treat as schematic) ....

 

 

Blue tracks the up and down main lines, allowing for tailchasing if/when wanted, purple the bi-directional storage sidings, obviously mirrored at the other end.

 

My other thought is that the station could be on a gentler curve across the whole of the top section of the plan, maybe turning through 60 degrees, with sharper 60 degree curves at each end completing the turns (again only schematic, ignore dimensions) ...

 

 

Just thinking aloud ....

 

Chris

 

[Flying Pig]

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.

 

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'.

 

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.