First Real Layout

[CoombeTown]

This is my first thread within this forum, hopefully, more will follow. For the last decade, I have been building a large layout in the spare bedroom of my parents' house. Now approaching graduation I need to start again, this time with a smaller, more portable layout this time aiming for more exhibitable standards. The current plan is set in the Midlands area of the GWR on the outskirts of Birmingham,  with a junction station and small goods yards set into a walled cutting, aiming for photography opportunities a la Liverpool Lime Street. The secondary main line was an early casualty with the continuing line terminated and the station left to serve the local industry and the connecting branch further into the suburbs. With the double track mainline now singled into the tunnels the below track plan was devised. Although, advice on this would be much appreciated from those with more experience of providing some good operation at exhibitions.

 

 

Trains would enter from either the traverser, left, or the turntable, top, the into the station or goods loop, where they will then leave the other way or the way they entered. The goods yard facilities are fairly basic with an end loading ramp on the lowest siding. I currently have an issue with engines running through the goods shed to access the coal wagons, although no idea of how to solve this in a prototypical manner. The general geography of the layout is shown in the CAD details below.

 

 

I look forward to the input from others on this forum.

 

Dom

 

 

Edited June 2, 2019 by DRoe96

[DCB]

I think you are trying to cram too much in to a small space.  The goods loop is a bit unlikely. Taking the goods loop to platform crossover out would help. You could then use the loop as a siding.    Most stations didn't have this luxury especially after rationalisation and the goods would have reversed in the platforms, always supposing they retained the luxury of two platforms. The engine shed would have closed years before rationalisation so accessing the coal sidings through it wouldn't cause any issues.

Looking at some actual steam era track layouts rather than other people's layouts might provide some inspiration

Edited June 2, 2019 by DavidCBroad

[CoombeTown]

Hi David,

Thanks for that, I had mistakenly stated that it was an engine shed rather than goods shed, which would still be open. Your suggestion of removing the crossover from the goods loop is a good one that I will implement.

 

Looking at the plans for Llandilo in Wales, which has a similar sort of layout, with the inclusion of a crossover to the rear of the goods shed in the up yard. I plan to keep to use the siding, formerly goods loop, as access to the coal staithes and as an area to marshall outgoing freight trains, in a similar way to what I assume the Down Goods Siding was used for.

 

Shortening the two sidings in front of the goods shed below I think arrives at a nice flowing, functional yard below.

 

 

 

[Harlequin]

Hi Dom,

 

Sorry but to my eye it doesn't look convincing for a number of reasons.

• When the mainline was double track, wouldn't there have been a south platform?
• Why does the branch line apparently continue off scene to the right If the station is the branch junction?
• The direction the branch line joins the main implies that it was designed receive traffic mainly from the right. So it seems more likely that the mainline would have remained open to the right than to the left. As it stands branch access requires an awkward reversal.
• The scissors looks unusual for GWR track formations (but I'm no expert).
• The goods yard looks very congested.

 

You haven't said what era you are targeting but mainline EMU/DMU services would be uninteresting: FY to platform, wait, platform back to FY. Just a one dimensional movement, not even a wiggle in the line.

 

Suggestions:

• Maybe say the mainline was always single track. That would allow you to have just the one platform. The goods loop could then be directly off the single track mainline rather than looping off a now disused second mainline track, thus reducing the goods congestion a bit.
• Could you have fiddle yards on both sides? That would make operations more interesting, make the branch line work and avoid the contrivance of closing off a tunnel.
• If you replaced the scissors with a simple crossover, then operation would be a bit more difficult and thus more interesting.
• Use some curves! If you went with the two FY suggestion then the mainline and branch line could split on entry to the scene, flow sinuously either side of an island platform before the branch makes a definite curve off and the mainline lazily resumes it's normal course. (With a connection from branch to main just after the platform for run round and passing.) If that was all slightly diagonal it would give more room for the goods yard.
• The coal siding could kick back to the left (with a bit more baseboard width), again simplifying the current goods yard area and making operations more interesting.

 

Edited June 3, 2019 by Harlequin

[Flying Pig]

In cases like this, it's worth starting with an original latout and working forward. To that end here's how I think the pre-truncation layout might have looked in diagramatic form; I suspect that this was not the station where branch services terminated - that would be further along to the right - which explains the lack of dedicated branch platform.

 

 

Here's one possible rationalisation of that: the dotted lines show a couple of optional crossovers.  I've left out the goods yard, but I agree with Harlequin that it looks very tight in your plan.  I also agree that the layout would benefit from some curves in the track and in the scenic treatment as well to avoid having everything parallel to the board edge, which can give a rather lifeless effect.

 

[The Johnster]

Another possibility is that the disused platform is staggered and runs off to the left of the plan, perhaps past the scenic break.  I agree that the visual aspect of the layout would be improved by a gentle curve, but it is not necessary for any other reason.  

Edited June 4, 2019 by The Johnster

[CoombeTown]

Dear all,

 

Thanks for your really useful input. I'm reluctant to put the entire layout on a curve due to the impact it would have on the hidden sidings behind. However, I have attempted to make the track a bit more flowing and spacious.

 

I've now ended up with 3 options which all involve moving the station upwards to create more space in the goods yard to try and give a less cramped feel. This is achieved returning to a layout closer to the Llandilo plan, where the mainline was single track, with two platforms present at the station to allow trains to cross and a goods loop for passing.

 

The first option keeps the crossing at the left-hand end of the layout but as Harlequin says, looks a little unprototypical and simplifies operation a little too much. 

 

The second option simplifies the crossing end further, although I feel this is a bit too extreme and prevents multi-engine operation with the goods headshunt blocking passenger movements effectively.

 

This last one is probably my favourite, using the junction rationalisation suggested by Flying Pig there are some interesting movements for goods trains, and also allows the passenger locos to run around whilst shunting is ongoing. 

 

 

Be interesting to get your thoughts.

 

Thanks,

Dom

[Flying Pig]

The second option doesn't appear at all prototypical to me.  Both the other two are ok, but I suspect that operating the branch goods on option three, in the absence of a direct connection from the yard, will rapidly move from 'interesting' to 'tedious'.

[Harlequin]

Hi Dom,

 

Why is the box that size and shape? (In fact, what size is it and is the scale 4mm? OO? You haven't said.)

 

Where are the hidden sidings and how will they be operated?

 

Edited June 12, 2019 by Harlequin
More questions

[The Johnster]

The 3rd option 'looks' right to me, and is pretty versatile, but you perhaps need to consider how important operation is to you.  Trains from both sides can terminate and run around and the station can operate either as a through station, or a terminus from each direction (if you can put a fiddle yard on the right hand end as well), and it could operate as an 'end on' junction.  And of course it can be a passing station on a single track main line that is a branch junction as well.  But the goods yard is the wrong side of the formation to service the branch.  Maybe this is not it's purpose, and it is a purely a local yard for that station, in which case it might be an idea to incorporate another siding or loop on the 'top' side of the board, hard under the retaining wall, to serve as an exchange siding for the branch.

 

An alternative is to work the branch freight without stopping here at all except perhaps to run around, and have a separate pick up working for this goods yard.  

[CoombeTown]

Hi guys,

 

the layout is 00 gauge, and will use Peco Code 75. The length of the scenic area is 3.9m overall, with a further 1.2m traverser on the lefthand end, which will only be used in an exhibition scenario. The length is limited as what will fit diagonal over a double bed plus a bit more. The width is 300-500mm with ~280mm of hidden sidings behind, although the exact operation for these is yet to be determined.

 

I feel the rationalised part of the story limits the operation of the yard somewhat. Treating the layout as an end on junction at home and a through station at exhibitions, then including a means of direct access I think gives the operation I want. 

 

I think this makes sensible operation for the branch line goods trains as well using a double and a single-slip for access and crossing. Therefore, I think the only query I have is now about the goods loop onto the mainline, is it prototypical to extend this or should it just be a headshunt?

 

Thanks for bearing with this thread guys, the input is really useful.

[Harlequin]

Hi Dom,

 

I think option 3 is closest to what I was describing earlier and so I hope you don't mind but I've drawn up a combined version:

• Curves and angles for interest and to make better use of the space.
• Generous balloon platform with long faces accessed by steps down from angled overbridge.
• Goods yard can be operated independently. Long headshunt.
• 1 medium left, 4 medium right, 2 large Y, 1 small Y, 2 short right.
• Each square 305mm.

 

Edited June 13, 2019 by Harlequin

[CoombeTown]

Wow. Harlequin I think you really hit the nail on the head there, that looks far more flowing and the goods yard looks much more prototypical.

 

Now just to do it just justice in model form!

[Harlequin]

22 hours ago, Duple said:

Sorry for the thread hijack but what software have you used to design the track plan?

Hi Duple,

 

I use a normal desktop drawing program because I feel that the various purpose-made track design programs are too restrictive and channel you into rather staid and "lumpen" designs.

 

For layout design the program must either handle big drawings at 1:1 scale or allow you to set a dimension scale factor so that you can reduce the design onto a normal sheet of paper but still use full size measurements.

I made an accurate set of Peco Streamline OO points and crossings symbols that I then drag onto the page, rotate and snap into place.

With a drawing program you have the freedom to draw whatever you want, however you want, around the trackwork.

 

The program I use is Xara Designer, which is getting a bit old now but it does do dimension scaling, whereas lots of newer programs still don't. (Full disclosure: I work the company that makes Xara Designer.)

 

Edited June 15, 2019 by Harlequin