Opinions please on my BLT

[ejstubbs]

As the title says, really.  I'm planning a single track terminus based on the layout of Andrew P's Glen Roy.  The main baseboard is only 15" wide so there's a not a whole lot of room for manoeuvre.  Track plan below (placement of buildings etc is purely indicative, not to be taken as final):

 

 

Any constructive feedback would be welcome.

[Flying Pig]

Andrew has a knack of making layouts look good, but in your case I'm afraid its all ended up looking a little cramped and chaotic around the sidings. I don't think you have room for the loco shed and the headshunt, but fortunately the headshunt really isn't needed, so I'd remove that for a start.

 

I think I might widen the loading bank and put a small lock-up goods shed on it instead of the large one on the left.  The weighbridge will have to move but you can relocate the yard entrance where there's more room.   Then perhaps put a single slip at the corner of the loop and run a siding along the front of the layout, butting up against the loading bank, with just a single kickback siding in front of the loco shed off the other end of the slip?

 

On a practical note, you have drawn a four foot wide baseboard on the left which is going to make reaching the track at the rear nigh on impossible, so pruning the kickback yard might allow a more accessible arrangement.

[t-b-g]

Many years ago I built something very similar on an even narrower board of 12". It worked very well. I would agree that the curved siding behind he loco shed looks a bit squashed in and I think that the plan would look a lot less cluttered at the RH end without it.

 

The loco shed could be moved towards the running line slightly and that would create a bit more space for the goods yard area.

 

If the LH board looks like a 4' x 2' so you shouldn't have any problems reaching as long as you can get along the front of the goods yard and the board taking the line off scene isn't too wide.

[Harlequin]

I like it.

It is arguably a bit cramped at the left on plan but in 3D the headshunt and the coal yard are low profile features and won’t be so prominent. Cramping happens in the real world.

If you remove the headshunt you will need to replace the turnout with a trap to protect the running line.

 

You could maybe curve the platform to make it more interesting. Bow it towards the front. That would absorb the left hand kink where the running line currently straightens up to follow the platform face.

 

It looks like you might have some turnouts over baseboard joints. That may or may not be a problem.

 

Edited August 20, 2019 by Harlequin

[Titanius Anglesmith]

9 hours ago, Flying Pig said:

 

I think I might widen the loading bank and put a small lock-up goods shed on it instead of the large one on the left. 

 

Apologies for the hijack, but can you post a photo of what you mean please? (model or real).  Lately I’ve wondered whether goods sheds are treated as a bit of a “model must-have”, more so than is really justified. Looking at my local line, I think the ratio of yards with sheds to those without is probably about 60/40. But curiously, there seems to be no correlation between the size or importance of the yard and whether it had a shed or not. I suspect your suggested lock-up is actually a lot more common than is realised, and probably a lot less obvious when looking at prototype track plans or OS maps. 

 

No offence intended to anyone who has modelled a goods shed, I’m thinking about it myself!

[Zomboid]

Is the engine shed essential? I suppose that depends on what you're imagining the line to be. It would be one of the first casualties for me because it takes up space without adding play value. If the station needs one it could be off scene (eg Swanage) or down the line a bit (eg Fort William).

[Flying Pig]

1 hour ago, Titanius Anglesmith said:

 

Apologies for the hijack, but can you post a photo of what you mean please? (model or real).  Lately I’ve wondered whether goods sheds are treated as a bit of a “model must-have”, more so than is really justified. Looking at my local line, I think the ratio of yards with sheds to those without is probably about 60/40. But curiously, there seems to be no correlation between the size or importance of the yard and whether it had a shed or not. I suspect your suggested lock-up is actually a lot more common than is realised, and probably a lot less obvious when looking at prototype track plans or OS maps. 

 

No offence intended to anyone who has modelled a goods shed, I’m thinking about it myself!

 

I'm afraid the best I can do is this page of models - I was thinking of something on the scale of the GWR store illustrated, so as not to hide the station building too much.  Most photos online seem to be of the larger designs with a siding under cover.

 

However, for more general information on goods sheds I stumbled across some useful free resources - see this thread.

[t-b-g]

There were plenty of goods sheds where the track went alongside the building rather than through it. They tend to be a bit smaller and they also make it easier to see where you are shunting and coupling/uncoupling as an added bonus.

 

We don't at this stage know what period or railway company the proposed layout is going to be, so it isn't easy to quote suitable examples.

[Flying Pig]

On 20/08/2019 at 00:32, Flying Pig said:

Then perhaps put a single slip at the corner of the loop and run a siding along the front of the layout, butting up against the loading bank, with just a single kickback siding in front of the loco shed off the other end of the slip?

 

Like this with apologies for the crude sketch.  The goods shed is shown rather larger than I intended, but as noted above the style does depend on the originating company.

 

[ejstubbs]

Thanks everyone for your feedback.  I hope hope the comments below will fill in some backgrounds details, and explain some of the compromises I've made:

• The fiddle yard is 9" wide and stands about 3" away from the wall (there's a curtained window there).  So there's 3ft of open "frontage" on the 4ftx2ft board.  Access to the running lines has not been an issue on temporarily-laid experimental prototypes so far.
• I agree that the left-hand end of the platform is a bit awkward but I haven't yet managed to find a way to make it more elegant.  Every variation to the geometry I've tried to date has ended up introducing a much nastier reverse curve to accommodate the bay, or else messed up the run-round loop.  Given the limited width of the main baseboard, there's a limit to how much you can angle the main platform road.  From experimentation, anything more than about 3° starts to restrict the length of the main platform road (which I don't want), and even 2° compromises the spur off the loco release crossover to an unacceptable degree (arguably requiring another siding in the already 'cosy' goods yard to compensate).  I'm open to any ideas as to how I might be able to make it look less trainset-y without compromising those factors, though.
• The baseboards are securely joined with no 'steps', and there is no expectation of regularly dismantling and re-assembling the finished layout.  Based on experience with other layouts which had turnouts on well-constructed baseboard joints this is currently a minor concern.  The exception being where support battens may be in the way of under baseboard point motors but (a) that would apply equally to battens elsewhere under the baseboards, and (b) I am prepared to use surface mounted motors (suitably disguised if possible) where/if necessary.
• Period is post-grouping up to mid-1930s.  Geographical area is somewhere in the upper left quadrant of England.
• Regarding the engine shed, this has been discussed a few times on this forum.  My take away from those has been that small sheds weren't all that unusual at BLTs in earlier days, but became less common over time as working practices were tightened up/rationalised.  (If push comes to shove, though, in this case rule 1 applies.)
• The single slip idea was part of many, many earlier incarnations of this design but I've decided that I would prefer to do away with it  There isn't really enough room at the front edge of the narrow main baseboard to make the siding look like anything other than just a bit of track that has some wagons on it; it's difficult to add lineside features, vehicles etc to give it an apparent purpose.  Also, I'm not keen on the curve needed to bring it parallel to the baseboard edge: that looks very trainset-y to me.  (Although I admit that the left-hand end of the platform is similarly clunky, I'd prefer not to double-down on the flaw...)

[The Johnster]

I'd repeat Harlequin's advice about curving the platform away from the viewer; this will not only break up the rigidity of the lengths of straight line joined by curves, which is always a bit 'train set' but give the optical illusion of greater length.   I find that gentle curvature for platform roads, loops, and. sidings gives a more natural feel to the look (if a look can have a feel, that is).

 

I'm not a fan of engine sheds at BLTs, as it is dead space for much of the operating day, only used overnight, and can IMHO usually be used for something that generating traffic, like a mileage road, but this will depend on the timetable.  If the first train of the day originates here, then there has to be a shed for the loco, and a carriage siding for the stock, and the last train of the day must terminate here.  The alternative is that this happens at the junction, and the station is left empty except for whatever is in the goods yard overnight.  

 

I'd have to say that I'd be very tempted to have a kickback road off the bay platform, serving a small industry of some sort.  This would keep the operator on his toes when it is being shunted as the bay needs to be kept clear for passenger traffic!

 

 

[tomparryharry]

May I respectfully suggest that if you have a limited width scenario, try keeping the layout to a minimalist setting. "Less is more". If it's in the country, you'll find the simple service, with one man and his dog. If, however, you are (as Johnster says) working at a factory, industry or such, then you will be working like a blue-^rsed fly. 

 

The choice is yours, as long as you get to enjoy what you do!

 

Happy modelling,

Ian. 

[Harlequin]

Here's how curvy platform tracks could look:

 

[Julia]

22 hours ago, Harlequin said:

Here's how curvy platform tracks could look:

 

 

As I was looking at the first post my thought was "It's all very parallel", I was about to post something saying make the main body of station not parallel to the front of the board. Your curved platform idea is a good way of achieving the same thing. I was just going to suggest run the main platform tracks at an angle, but curving works too. I'm not sure about the bay platform, behind the platform tho. Why would you make the slightly more complex curved front to the platform, then stick a flat back in with a bay ? 

 

Regarding the left hand side. Comments re less is more are very sensible. i wonder however, if you take out the head shunt from behind the engine shed, this leaves more space for the engine shed, with water and coal, and more importantly ASH handling. I see a lot of otherwise very good models that seem to have totally forgotten to include any ash handling. Then for the goods yard, put an ever so slight curve between the point into the yard, and the point in the yard, this will bring the yard forward by 50mm or so, which will make a big difference. Then take the loading dock weigh bridge etc... from the RH end of the platform, and stick it on the left. Include a cattle dock, coal staithes, etc... Make it into the complete goods package. 

 

I'm interested to watch this develop!

 

J

[Miss Prism]

I can't see the point in having a bay.

 

[Harlequin]

37 minutes ago, Julia said:

 

As I was looking at the first post my thought was "It's all very parallel", I was about to post something saying make the main body of station not parallel to the front of the board. Your curved platform idea is a good way of achieving the same thing. I was just going to suggest run the main platform tracks at an angle, but curving works too. I'm not sure about the bay platform, behind the platform tho. Why would you make the slightly more complex curved front to the platform, then stick a flat back in with a bay ? 

 

 

29 minutes ago, Miss Prism said:

I can't see the point in having a bay.

 

 

If the bay is retained, I agree it would be more comfortable if it curved too.

 

There is just a enough room for it to curve towards the back by a few degrees (and that's all it needs) but the OP might consider it's too close to the backscene then.

 

[The Johnster]

I can see the point of a bay.  It means you can accept a passenger train from 'the junction' while one is already at the station, and if you like imagine a kickback 'twig off a branch' line with the terminus as the connecting station.  I can be used for unloading vans at quieter periods, and was not an uncommon arrangement in reality.  

 

Ash at a small BLT shed was usually just dumped on the ground in the 4 foot under the loco, and shovelled up for disposal when it moved away; a pit is overkill and no special facility is needed, but an ash-stained area by the coal stage will show where it happens, and you might emphasise the point with an ash pile or a wheelbarrow in the vicinity.  You might have an inspection pit inside the shed, though.  Maintenance of locos will be pretty basic and the branch loco probably has to go down to the main shed at the junction for boiler washouts, every 10 working days and out of service for about 48 hours.  The shed will not be able to do much more than running repairs, replacing firebars, and basic preparation or disposal, and the loco will be kept in light steam for the 10 day running period, though of course the fire will be dropped and cleaned daily.

[Miss Prism]

5 hours ago, The Johnster said:

I can see the point of a bay.  It means you can accept a passenger train from 'the junction' while one is already at the station,

 

Errr, how many small* branches were that busy?

 

* I mean not 'large' ones like Newquay, Falmouth, Kingswear, Barry Island, Henley, Windsor etc

 

[t-b-g]

2 minutes ago, Miss Prism said:

 

Errr, how many small* branches were that busy?

 

* I mean not 'large' ones like Newquay, Falmouth, Kingswear, Barry Island, Henley, Windsor etc

 

 

I think there has always been a difference between what modellers run on their single track small branch stations compared to the real thing.

 

If you want to copy a real place of that size, one loco, one set of carriages plus a daily goods would be all you would need but it would become very dull and repetitive.

 

 

 

 

[Miss Prism]

 

'Dull and repetitive' ?  Discuss.

 

[Zomboid]

Depends what you enjoy really. Plenty of fun to be had shunting wagons around. Passenger operations less so.

[Harlequin]

Hi @ejstubbs.

 

Following on from the curved platform suggestion and other folks comments I knocked up a design which keeps all the original features but moves the engine shed and opens up the yard.

 

I hope you don't mind me posting it here.

 

 

• The engine shed and goods shed frame a nicely balanced scene - and balanced track plan.
• The engine shed partly obscures the tracks where they are close to the backscene.
• If the offices and weighbridge are still at the loading end they are now imagined, off-scene somewhere.
• I used a Medium Right turnout to come off the entry curve to give a bit of transition.

 

Edited August 24, 2019 by Harlequin

[t-b-g]

16 hours ago, Miss Prism said:

 

'Dull and repetitive' ?  Discuss.

 

 

Lovely looking layout. Runs well. Might look better with a backscene as whatever is behind the layout distracts from the view. Much bigger than the one under discussion.

 

I went to see it a few times at Wells and each time I saw it, the same loco was running on the same train and performing the same moves. I didn't stay long as I found that dull and repetitive! 

Edited August 24, 2019 by t-b-g
typo!

[The Stationmaster]

21 hours ago, Miss Prism said:

I can't see the point in having a bay.

 

A very perceptive comment.   It is difficult to think of many small branch termini which had a bay platform.  A dock siding yes, but a whole bay platform would really only be found on much busier branches where more than one passenger trains was likely to be running.  This of course usually takes us into 'model railway land' where - as already noted - many branchline models acquire a profusion of trains thus 'needing' more platforms.  

 

The bay however has its operational disadvantages because unless railcars or auto trains are used any train which arrives in them has to be shunted to the main platform in order to run round.  The bay does however give a rather contrary advantage because the passenger train can be shunted to it to allow a freight to be accepted into the main platform although the situation on most smaller branches was that the freight normally arrived when the passenger train wasn't there to get in the way.  

 

That odd advantage apart the bay at a small branch terminus capable of holding a passenger train is really more of a long established model railway thing rather than a reflection of the everyday real world - but Hayling Island had one so there can be exceptions to the rule.

[LBRJ]

Someone mentioned Kingswear earlier in the thread, as a larger type of BLT.

Something based on there would be my idea of the sort of layout envisaged here.