GWR Branch Terminus (OO Gauge)

[petejones]

Hello

 

I'm planning a new layout based on a track plan by Cyril Freezer in The Model Railway Design Manual (p.41). There will be a small station, goods yard, signal box, loco shed, water tower and raised coal platform (GWR used the latter apparently). It suits my needs and I will be extending it on the left-hand side to form an L-shape at some point, which will likely go off to a scenic fiddle yard (perhaps a loco shed). The era is late 50s/early 60s, GWR, probably Welsh borders. Traffic will be a 64xx Pannier with various wagons, a 2-car DMU and a Hymek. I will also have three coaches, to attach to either the 64xx or the Hymek.

 

Does this sound OK so far? I'd rather people pick fault at this stage as no work done on the physical layout yet!

 

I do have some questions:

 

1. Home signals, do I need any and where would they go?

 

2. Shunt signals, where would they go?

 

3. Do I need a catch point?

 

Think that's it for now!

 

Cheers

Pete

[RailWest]

First question - what sort of traffic frequency do you envisage? For example, if you envisage about one train every couple of hours, hence a sort of service that could be operated on a line worked as One-Engine-in-Steam in the section leading to the terminus, then you could control the whole lot from a ground-frame unlocked by the OES train staff and manage quite well without any signals at all.

 

To be honest, the layout plan is so similar to so many 'typical' basic GWR termini that you could easily find a prototype to copy that is as simple/complex as you want.

 

Note - the LH end of you run-round loop will need a trap-point protecting the exit onto the main running line.

 

Is the road at the upper RH meant to be a bay platform or some sort? If so, is it intended for passenger train use, or just goods/parcels etc?

[Danemouth]

You have no headshunt which will make shunting the two sidings difficult - The headshunt would also eliminate the need for a trap point. Have a look at my layout plan here.

 

Regards,

 

Dave

[petejones]

Thanks Chris. I imagine it won't be too busy with perhaps a passenger service three times a day. I did think about changing it to double track, but then would I need to lose the run around in the station?

 

I will add some rectangles to the plan to show where the buildings will be, but yes, the upper RH is a bay platform.

[petejones]

Thanks Dave, that's a perfect match! I will read your full thread later this evening.

[RailWest]

6 minutes ago, petejones said:

Thanks Chris. I imagine it won't be too busy with perhaps a passenger service three times a day. I did think about changing it to double track, but then would I need to lose the run around in the station?

 

Really. If just three passenger trains a day, with maybe one or perhaps goods trains, I would be surprised that the railway had not been shut years ago :-) Double track would seem highly unlikely under such circumstances, unless you envisage a once-busy line that had been drastically rationalised.

[petejones]

OK, maybe one every couple of hours! I'm easy

[petejones]

Added the headshunt and the buildings. The board will measure 12ft by 18", but I want to get the station and yard into 8ft if possible.

 

Edited June 17, 2019 by petejones
Wrong image!

[Harlequin]

Hi Pete,

 

Sorry, but your goods yard is tiny - pretty much unusable, in fact! You could make it a bit longer by taking it off the run round loop just where it starts to curve and that would avoid the wiggle as well. (Maybe use a double slip.)

 

But there may be an even better solution. Is all of that length available for the station? What size is it (I guess the squares are not feet)? Why not do something radical and have the platform and run round nearer left and the goods yard (and other facilities) beyond it to the right? Many real stations were laid out that way.

Edit: We cross-posted. Shame that you can’t use the full width available.

 

P.S. With a long straight into the platform line as you have shown it currently, the DMU movements will be rather dull - just slide in, wait and slide out again. A one-dimensional movement.

Edited June 17, 2019 by Harlequin

[RailWest]

39 minutes ago, petejones said:

Thanks Chris. I imagine it won't be too busy with perhaps a passenger service three times a day. I did think about changing it to double track, but then would I need to lose the run around in the station?

 

If the 'bay' line is for passenger use, then there needs to be a trap-point at the exit from the loco-shed siding.

[Siberian Snooper]

I would try and put the whole lot on a gentle curve, as this seems to make layouts look longer than they are.

 

 

[petejones]

OK, some minor adjustments.

[petejones]

Rotated slightly as suggested to add curvature. Looking better already!

[petejones]

1 hour ago, Harlequin said:

But there may be an even better solution. Is all of that length available for the station? What size is it (I guess the squares are not feet)? Why not do something radical and have the platform and run round nearer left and the goods yard (and other facilities) beyond it to the right? Many real stations were laid out that way.

Edit: We cross-posted. Shame that you can’t use the full width available.

 

I can use the full width, however the board will be in two sections (I think), split at 4ft (left) and 8ft (right) - to keep the weight down and make it easier to move between rooms (and God-forbid, if I ever move house again). I'm keeping it flexible as then there is scope to extend should additional room be available or I move the layout into a larger room for running purposes. Currently the room where it will be kept is 14ft wide and I need to leave 18" for the L-shaped fiddle yard. I did want a bit of a scenic section in the run up to the station and yard.

 

However, as this is just a plan on the computer, I will play around with a full width station and goods yard.

 

PS: The squares are 6"

[Harlequin]

Hi Pete,

 

I've got an idea for a trackplan. Is it OK to post it here?

 

Edited June 18, 2019 by Harlequin

[Siberian Snooper]

That 2nd plan makes a huge difference.

 

 

[Joseph_Pestell]

11 hours ago, petejones said:

Rotated slightly as suggested to add curvature. Looking better already!

 

[Joseph_Pestell]

Much the best so far.

 

I would lose the shorter track in the goods yard and have the remaining road parallel to the baseboard edge to get a bit more space for road  vehicle movements in the goods yard.

 

Also worth looking at moving the point entering the goods yard/runround left of the point to bay/engine shed. It will make the loop much longer and enable passenger trains to be the full length of the platform.

Edited June 18, 2019 by Joseph_Pestell
Add

[Joseph_Pestell]

If we forget the bay platform, you are quite close to replicating Bodmin GW.

 

Worth taking a look at as it is interesting operationally with the second route to Wadebridge.

[petejones]

13 hours ago, Harlequin said:

Hi Pete,

 

I've got an idea for a trackplan. Is it OK to post it here?

 

Sure, please do.

[petejones]

Encorporated a couple of suggestions from Joseph.

[Harlequin]

19 hours ago, petejones said:

Sure, please do.

Thanks.

 

The idea is roughly what I said above: Have the passenger platform "in series" with the goods yard rather than in parallel because it makes better use of your long thin area and it's a little bit more unusual than most BLT models.

 

• You can see that I've sacrificed the purely scenic run on the left but in return you get this lovely long, flowing station. (And there's arguably enough scenery around the left end of the station to give the same effect.)
• I've also abandoned the bay platform because it's a bit of a modeller's cliche. In partial compensation for that, the goods yard has 4 sidings.
• Generous run round means you could potentially have 4 coach trains but also means that small passenger trains look great standing against the long platform face.
• Small spur off the run round acts as a trap and also somewhere to leave the brake van while shunting goods trains.
• Usable yard space for turning road vehicles. Coal siding along the back.
• Exit from scene turns towards the right-angled fiddle yard to help the connection (could turn even more than shown).
• Three boards, each 4ft by 18in for easy moving. Pointwork kept clear of the joints.
• All Peco Streamline: 4 medium right, 1 large Y, 1 single slip, 1 right-hand catch point (note!).

 

Edited June 19, 2019 by Harlequin

[Joseph_Pestell]

I really like that one. But does not say GW to me.

 

Of course, it might have been built by another railway company and then taken over by the GW.

[RailWest]

The GWR did have a number of stations where the goods yard was beyond the platform, perhaps the best known being Looe and Fairford. However in both thoses cases the run-round loop was within the yard, rather than alongside the platform, and such layouts do tend to be rather long.

 

Looking at Harlequin's plan in a different way, imagine that the buffer-stop is at the LH end and the siding at the top RH is actually the single-line. The slip connection would have to be replaced by a normal point for access to the loop, with the short siding coming off the yard siding. Then you have perhaps a more conventional arrangement, but with the approach from the fiddle-yard partially masked by trains appearing from behind the goods shed. If you want the fiddle yard at the LH end, then just reverse the whole things a mirror image.

 

Maybe also move the engine shed siding point further towards the release, so that the shed itself can be moved opposite the platform, therefore avoiding the impression of being 'squashed' between the sidings and the baseboard edge.

[petejones]

That's quite different. I'm mixed about it - I didn't really want a curved platform, but am now coming round to the idea of using the full 12ft width. I will draw it in AnyRail and see how it looks.