Jump to content
 

End of Branchline terminus layout advice


davegardnerisme
 Share

Recommended Posts

I have reservations too, because the extra short sidings make it look a bit cramped and implausible; ‘less is more’, I think might be what I’m suggesting.

 

The two bridges I do like a lot.

 

Balancing the visual mass of the mill is going to be a challenge, in either version of the plan.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

The last design could still be made to looked "shoe-horned" into a tight location by the scenery even though it's more open than before. I think some of the sidings are too short, though.

 

@davegardnerisme

Good answer about the river and track levels - the current flat boards were confusing me.

 

Good answer about the diamond crossing too! ;) Crossings do suggest a yard that has changed over time and they can add a bit of deliberate awkwardness, which people seem to like.

 

Edited by Harlequin
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

If this is the early 60s, I'd think a class 03 would be more likely on a branchline freight than an 08, particularly if said freight had to travel any distance on a main line (03s were faster than 08s). Unless it's Scotland, where there were no 03s (but not many 47s in the early 60s there).

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

Further thoughts:

 

The platform is very short especially when you take the loco release into account. To operate with two or three coach trains you'd have to uncouple, run round and then shunt them up against the buffers. That did happen at some stations but you might consider it's a bit tedious.

 

Assuming that the viewing side is at the front then the station building and the platform soomewhat obscure the interesting scene behind.

 

So I wonder if it would be possible to have the platform at the back, with the yard in front of it, so that operations were more visible? That would also allow the platform to be longer if you wanted. The Mill could still be behind the main line, accessed from the yard via diamond crossing(s) for that feeling of making best use of an existing cramped space and the slightly awkward operations it would introduce.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

Here's my contribution, along the lines of less is more.  I've rearranged the throat a bit to avoid the curved point which is imo a little tight on its inside radius, but the length of the runround is very close to your previous version. Having drawn it I would say that this is quite short and you might want to play with the plan at full size to see how the resulting trains look.

 

I would put a loading bank and small goods shed on the line adjacent to the loco release, though there would be little to no traffic passing through by your period.  In the event that there were wagons in the siding, you could still shunt the mill as shown by the arrow. 

 

There's a single general goods/coal siding as I think this fits the space you have better.  I haven't provided a dedicated oil siding, so you may have to shunt everything else to get at the tanks, but I believe this sort of thing wasn't uncommon on the prototype and I don't know where you'd put a siding without cramping the plan.

 

I've kept the 'bay', though I don't know what it would be used for.  I can imagine it having previously been carriage dock and cattle, but by your period it would probably just be a spare road.

 

EOB1.png.84886c73e7bc0e459e1e0609727e0bf2.png

 

 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
29 minutes ago, Harlequin said:

Further thoughts:

 

The platform is very short especially when you take the loco release into account. To operate with two or three coach trains you'd have to uncouple, run round and then shunt them up against the buffers. That did happen at some stations but you might consider it's a bit tedious.

 

Here you have to think about the size of the local the railway is serving. Would a loco and one be the average size train? Probably, and I would guess no more than loco and two tops. As long as the platform is long enough for three Mk1's (they are 64'6" long, and are way longer than the pre-grouping coaches that would have served the station to start with, giving a decent 4-4-0 and three 48 footers) then I think it will be fine.

Running around trains and then coupling up and then pushing back to the stops was a fairly common thing to do, and I don't see it as a tedious thing to do on a model railway. One of the joys of a branchline terminus is that you have the time to operate it properly by doing these sorts of things, as lets be honest how many trains in a day would actually be run?

29 minutes ago, Harlequin said:

Assuming that the viewing side is at the front then the station building and the platform soomewhat obscure the interesting scene behind.

 

So I wonder if it would be possible to have the platform at the back, with the yard in front of it, so that operations were more visible? That would also allow the platform to be longer if you wanted. The Mill could still be behind the main line, accessed from the yard via diamond crossing(s) for that feeling of making best use of an existing cramped space and the slightly awkward operations it would introduce.

 

 

I wonder if obscuration is actually going to be an issue. Depends on the operating height and whether the owner actually wants clear views across the scene. It also depends if its operated from the front or back. I don't think its an issue with this scene, and would actually argue that it would look far to cluttered with all the buildings at the rear.

 

Andy G

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
9 minutes ago, Flying Pig said:

Here's my contribution, along the lines of less is more.  I've rearranged the throat a bit to avoid the curved point which is imo a little tight on its inside radius, but the length of the runround is very close to your previous version. Having drawn it I would say that this is quite short and you might want to play with the plan at full size to see how the resulting trains look.

 

I would put a loading bank and small goods shed on the line adjacent to the loco release, though there would be little to no traffic passing through by your period.  In the event that there were wagons in the siding, you could still shunt the mill as shown by the arrow. 

 

There's a single general goods/coal siding as I think this fits the space you have better.  I haven't provided a dedicated oil siding, so you may have to shunt everything else to get at the tanks, but I believe this sort of thing wasn't uncommon on the prototype and I don't know where you'd put a siding without cramping the plan.

 

I've kept the 'bay', though I don't know what it would be used for.  I can imagine it having previously been carriage dock and cattle, but by your period it would probably just be a spare road.

 

EOB1.png.84886c73e7bc0e459e1e0609727e0bf2.png

 

 

 

This looks good, I think that the loading bank arrangement could also include the cattle dock, and agree that the 'bay' road is probably not needed. It could perhaps accomodate a camping coach, but that really depends on the time frame, but I think I would do without it, which will enable the platform to be closer to the edge giving just a bit more room to the whole arrangement. The toe to toe points under the red arrow would give more room if it were a double slip too.

 

Andy G

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

Thank you everyone for suggestions and feedback. On the less is more theme, and incorporating ideas from multiple posts, here's another version.

  • Try to make sidings longer and simplify (fewer sidings)
  • Make the station a bit longer, and get rid of the second track
  • Move the disused cattle dock over to the second line (which will double up as a head shunt for accessing mill)

One thing to note: I'm trying to avoid points/crossings on the joins. I will need to be able to dismantle the thing for storage. The 1m boards are so I can work on one at at a time for some of the scenery. This means that whilst I managed to squeeze an inch by moving everything to the right a bit, I can't really move it any more unless I move it a lot.

 

I will have a think about the station position, but I think the viewing will probably be OK because the platform is mostly just a flat low structure. And I quite like the flowing S of the main line all the way from tunnel towards the back of the layout, and then through to the station at the front.

 

I think the mill + warehouses make more sense in one place. I'm imagining they're all part of the same complex, and looking at aerial photos they are huge in real life. So having the mill over the other side of the river (even though I loved the two bridge idea) I'm thinking makes less sense.

 

take5.png.16f2417c9b44a64ff220dd01a750a170.png

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
12 minutes ago, davegardnerisme said:

I think the mill + warehouses make more sense in one place. I'm imagining they're all part of the same complex, and looking at aerial photos they are huge in real life. So having the mill over the other side of the river (even though I loved the two bridge idea) I'm thinking makes less sense.

 

They can be huge in real life but I think such a structure would dominate the scene excessively.  Two smaller buildings might make a more pleasing composition and the two bridge arrangement would be very attractive.  It also makes for two distinct spots for shunting and possibly more varied traffic.  Again worth mocking up full size to see what you think.

 

I still think your coal siding is shorter than it might be.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
35 minutes ago, Flying Pig said:

 

They can be huge in real life but I think such a structure would dominate the scene excessively.  Two smaller buildings might make a more pleasing composition and the two bridge arrangement would be very attractive.  It also makes for two distinct spots for shunting and possibly more varied traffic.  Again worth mocking up full size to see what you think.

 

I still think your coal siding is shorter than it might be.


Ok .. I’ll try same but with the extra bridge and longer coal siding. Thanks!

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
35 minutes ago, Flying Pig said:

 

They can be huge in real life but I think such a structure would dominate the scene excessively.  Two smaller buildings might make a more pleasing composition and the two bridge arrangement would be very attractive.  It also makes for two distinct spots for shunting and possibly more varied traffic.  Again worth mocking up full size to see what you think.

 

I still think your coal siding is shorter than it might be.


Ok .. I’ll try same but with the extra bridge and longer coal siding. Thanks!

Link to post
Share on other sites

The warehouse could be linked across the river to the mill by a high-level enclosed bridge for pedestrians and carts carrying bolts of cloth or WHY. Perfectly plausible, and it gives both another bridge and possibly a way of losing the river off-scene. 

 

A weir in the river, from when the mill was water powered? Different construction of the two buildings to suggest development over time, and to break the visual mass?

 

 

Edited by Nearholmer
  • Like 2
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
5 minutes ago, Nearholmer said:

The warehouse could be linked across the river to the mill by a high-level enclosed bridge for pedestrians and carts carrying bolts of cloth or WHY. Perfectly plausible, and it gives both another bridge and possibly a way of losing the river off-scene. 

 

A weir in the river, from when the mill was water powered? Different construction of the two buildings to suggest development over time, and to break the visual mass?

 

 

Nice ideas .. will definitely help lose the river. Ok so with minor tweaks we end up with longer sidings all round:

 

take6.png.b3f751f8c68cdcf52b95e66c3b7e0c65.png

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

The mill bridge could be something quite simple, maybe a trestle like structure? This could possibly have a weight restriction on it forcing the use of something like a class 03/04/06 to be the trip engine.

I'm seeing the main line bridge being a plate girder, which will then contrast with the trestle. Maybe if you have your weir the river could widen out towards the front, causing the main line to have a longer span than the siding one, so you can see the trestle through the girder.

In fact you could almost have the mill siding drop away from the diamond and point so that the trestle is at a lower height to the railway and to exaggerate this the main line could start to climb towards the tunnel.

 

Somehow this has really caught my imagination, I suppose that its because its got a good track layout, which is not the norm!

 

Andy G

 

  • Like 3
  • Craftsmanship/clever 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
4 minutes ago, uax6 said:

The mill bridge could be something quite simple, maybe a trestle like structure? This could possibly have a weight restriction on it forcing the use of something like a class 03/04/06 to be the trip engine.

I'm seeing the main line bridge being a plate girder, which will then contrast with the trestle. Maybe if you have your weir the river could widen out towards the front, causing the main line to have a longer span than the siding one, so you can see the trestle through the girder.

In fact you could almost have the mill siding drop away from the diamond and point so that the trestle is at a lower height to the railway and to exaggerate this the main line could start to climb towards the tunnel.

 

Somehow this has really caught my imagination, I suppose that its because its got a good track layout, which is not the norm!

 

Andy G

 

 

I am going to see if I can squeeze in that height difference between the bridges. And a great idea to have the bridges very different in style / restrictions!

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

This is something like what I was getting at earlier:

Daveisme3.png.0c4efb965989253cff0beeb1afd6876c.png

  • Longer platform
  • Good view of operations
  • Access to Mill via two crossings
  • Nearholmer's pedestrian bridge to hide the river exit from the scene. Great idea!
  • Signal cabin trapped on an "island"
  • Sinuous main line
  • Fairly long goods sidings.
  • Goods yard trapped properly
  • Points away from baseboard joins.

Possibly a bit too neat and tidy? "Less is more" but this could do with just a litte bit more, I think.

 

  • Like 2
  • Agree 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

That looks really good.

 

The one change i’d Make would be to have the mill sidings train off the loop, rather than a siding, thereby avoiding “hogging” the siding.

 

If the mill siding ran as shown, it would almost certainly be horse or tractor shunted.

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

39 minutes ago, Harlequin said:

This is something like what I was getting at earlier:

Daveisme3.png.0c4efb965989253cff0beeb1afd6876c.png

  • Longer platform
  • Good view of operations
  • Access to Mill via two crossings
  • Nearholmer's pedestrian bridge to hide the river exit from the scene. Great idea!
  • Signal cabin trapped on an "island"
  • Sinuous main line
  • Fairly long goods sidings.
  • Goods yard trapped properly
  • Points away from baseboard joins.

Possibly a bit too neat and tidy? "Less is more" but this could do with just a litte bit more, I think.

 

 

This arrangement looks unlikely to me. Crossing the passenger road means that traps and signalling in each direction would be required, They would just have accessed the mill from a siding straight off the main single line in the other direction to avoid all that faff.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, clachnaharry said:

They would just have accessed the mill from a siding straight off the main single line in the other direction to avoid all that faff.

Unless the local geography made that impossible somehow. The diamond across the platform line would be unusual, but not unheard of.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
9 minutes ago, clachnaharry said:

 

This arrangement looks unlikely to me. Crossing the passenger road means that traps and signalling in each direction would be required, They would just have accessed the mill from a siding straight off the main single line in the other direction to avoid all that faff.

 

 

The conceit is that that was the only way the mill siding could be added in the restricted location some years after the station was first built.

No trapping needed of course.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
9 minutes ago, clachnaharry said:

 

How is the passenger line protected from unauthorised movements across the crossing?

I see what you mean. I was thinking more about preventing stock rolling onto the passenger lines accidentally.

 

This question of trapping and signalling this formation is beyond my level of knowledge!

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
1 hour ago, Harlequin said:

This is something like what I was getting at earlier:

  • Longer platform
  • Good view of operations
  • Access to Mill via two crossings
  • Nearholmer's pedestrian bridge to hide the river exit from the scene. Great idea!
  • Signal cabin trapped on an "island"
  • Sinuous main line
  • Fairly long goods sidings.
  • Goods yard trapped properly
  • Points away from baseboard joins.

Possibly a bit too neat and tidy? "Less is more" but this could do with just a litte bit more, I think.

 

 

Thanks for taking the time to put this together. It's certainly making me think.

 

My immediate observation is that it's much less compressed, which probably matches reality more closely, but pushes everything quite a way to the right and onto the third board. My original idea was to have this just the mainline winding its way through this board to give some sense of arriving from somewhere, and to give space to change the terrain height (so the scene could disappear into a tunnel). No particular need to keep that though.

  • Like 1
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...