End of Branchline terminus layout advice

[Harlequin]

11 minutes ago, davegardnerisme said:

 

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

Thanks! Great!

11 minutes ago, davegardnerisme said:

 

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.

I tried to keep the mainline away from the mill sidings so that you could visually separate them and hopefully give some feel of it running through landscape.

 

Have you planned your fiddle yard? The type and design of fiddle yard can affect the best way for the line to leave the scenic area.

 

[uax6]

The mill siding would be scotched, but I don't like that plan, it looks wrong compared to the station at the front.

 

Andy G

[davegardnerisme]

18 minutes ago, Harlequin said:

Thanks! Great!

I tried to keep the mainline away from the mill sidings so that you could visually separate them and hopefully give some feel of it running through landscape.

 

Have you planned your fiddle yard? The type and design of fiddle yard can affect the best way for the line to leave the scenic area.

 

 

Not yet, no. My knowledge at the beginning of this exercise was close to zero, and now I find myself reading "The Railway Goods Shed and Warehouse in England" to try to understand more about railways and their use! https://historicengland.org.uk/images-books/publications/railway-goods-shed-and-warehouse-in-england/the-railway-goods-shed-and-warehouse/

[DCB]

I would make the run round as long as practical.  Rivers and roads were no impediment to long loops,  Buckfastleigh is a good example.

Goathland NYMR is an example of a siding having its own bridge over a river.

If you must have a mill on a kick back then my doodle on a previous posting is my take on the concept

[Compound2632]

2 hours ago, Nearholmer said:

I think Holcombe Brook station on the L&Y had an even more similar track plan, but I can’t find a diagram that shows the trapping there.

 

Browsing through this from the beginning, I had niggling at me the feeling that the backstory needed development. Yorkshire, yes - a large and varied county! The character of the railway, even in the hanging by a thread 60s/70s, would be very much determined by the pre-grouping company. Everything we've seen is utterly un-Midland-like. Enthusiasts for the Great Northern's West Riding lines might have a view; it could even be North Eastern but probably not North Western. However I do like the L&Y idea - we seem to have the right cramped-in-a-narrow-industrial-valley feel.

[uax6]

The drawback with long loops is that they rob what little scenic area there is on a layout as short as this. I can't see the advantage of taking it back the other side of the bridge.  But what I do like is the mill sidings coming off the run round, far more likely.

 

Andy g

[davegardnerisme]

Take 7, I think. I had to lose the diamond crossings to make the angles work.

 

Missing (from original) a place for the diesels to refuel .. would a branchline terminus have that?

 

I'm thinking maybe it makes sense to have a goods shed somewhere? Any other additions needed?

 

[Nearholmer]

Looking good.

 

The GS would naturally have been on the siding second from front, which in reality would have diverged further from the station to make room for carts to turn.

 

Maybe it was a wooden one, which burned down in 1964, leaving only foundations and scorch marks?

 

[uax6]

No requirement for refueling diesels, that would be done at their home depot. Goods shed not really required, not all places had them.

 

Whats the slip doing at the bottom of the plan next to the river? Is it for trapping purposes? I'd loose it personally. Also I'd loose that small shunter siding, yes a trap would be there, but this place is likely to be mainly run by one loco at a time, the goods service probably being one train a day, which would be in between one of the passenger trains, which would probably be a two - three hour service, so giving plenty of time for a trip to run down, shunt and clear off before the next passenger train.

 

Andy g

[Zomboid]

I'd highly doubt that there would be any diesel servicing at a location like this, unless it's ultra remote (did even Georgemas Junction/ Thurso/ Wick have anything?). If a BR owned shunter is outbased there (unlikely, but rule 1 applies at all times) then it would go back to base for fuelling.

[RLWP]

14 hours 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.

 

 

 

Also, the platforms are accessed by a curve across a bridge and the sidings by a much simpler approach. It seems to be making the working of trains more complicated than needed

Lifting a train out of a station through a reverse curve seems unnecessarily perverse

 

Richard

[clachnaharry]

I like the final variation of the original plan. The mill siding crossing the yard siding adds interest and looks authentic because it is the only way that the goods yard and mill access can be squeezed into that area, and most importantly there is no fouling of the passenger line with all the expensive signalling and trapping implications.

 

On the new variation, the crossing looks contrived.

[Nearholmer]

Laying out siding access as in the final plan was common practice in the years when the restrictions on facing points on running lines first came in, but point locking technology was still rather immature. 

 

That form of layout survived in a some places, I’ve highlighted two,  but was superseded in many once better FPLs became available.

 

So, it might look contrived, because we aren’t used to seeing it, but it is very much prototypical.

[davegardnerisme]

18 minutes ago, Nearholmer said:

Looking good.

 

The GS would naturally have been on the siding second from front, which in reality would have diverged further from the station to make room for carts to turn.

 

Maybe it was a wooden one, which burned down in 1964, leaving only foundations and scorch marks?

 

 

Nice idea! I want to make sure there's some dilapidation in the layout.

[davegardnerisme]

7 minutes ago, clachnaharry said:

I like the final variation of the original plan. The mill siding crossing the yard siding adds interest and looks authentic because it is the only way that the goods yard and mill access can be squeezed into that area, and most importantly there is no fouling of the passenger line with all the expensive signalling and trapping implications.

 

On the new variation, the crossing looks contrived.

 

I'm not sure either. I think these are the two options. Next I'll probably mock them up again on the boards to see what they look like. The decision might also be based on how much existing track elements can be used (vs having to buy lots more). This will probably have to wait until next weekend.

[Harlequin]

1 hour ago, davegardnerisme said:

Take 7, I think. I had to lose the diamond crossings to make the angles work.

 

Missing (from original) a place for the diesels to refuel .. would a branchline terminus have that?

 

I'm thinking maybe it makes sense to have a goods shed somewhere? Any other additions needed?

 

 

That looks good to me too. The diamond crossing (you do still have one - it's just longer now) adds that little bit of awkwardness that gives the design some real character.

 

My take on the shunter spur and the double slip at the end of the run round loop is to keep them both because they both protect the passenger lines in the same way and because I love those weedy stub sidings that they create with rusty buffers at the end. But I suggest shortening the shunter spur so it is just a stub siding. Alternatively replace the slip with a turnout and a Trap and replace the curving SL-86 with just a bit of track and a Trap. It depends what the normal practice was of the local railway company (in your imagination).

 

The nice curving run in, the multiple bridges over the river, the looming presence of the mill and warehouses, the remains of the burned down goods shed, the signal box isolated and perched above the river all combine to make this something special!

 

Edited September 3, 2019 by Harlequin

[The Stationmaster]

34 minutes ago, Harlequin said:

 

That looks good to me too. The diamond crossing (you do still have one - it's just longer now) adds that little bit of awkwardness that gives the design some real character.

 

My take on the shunter spur and the double slip at the end of the run round loop is to keep them both because they both protect the passenger lines in the same way and because I love those weedy stub sidings that they create with rusty buffers at the end. But I suggest shortening the shunter spur so it is just a stub siding. Alternatively replace the slip with a turnout and a Trap and replace the curving SL-86 with just a bit of track and a Trap. It depends what the normal practice was of the local railway company (in your imagination).

 

The nice curving run in, the multiple bridges over the river, the looming presence of the mill and warehouses, the remains of the burned down goods shed, the signal box isolated and perched above the river all combine to make this something special!

 

Double slips, or even half a slip, used as a trap point were pretty rare beasts in my experience and were only found where space was at a premium.  So you could get away with using one if the topography really cramps the site of the station but it won't look right if there's plenty of space on that side.

 

The provision of a spur is a different sort of debate.  it obviously has little or no use for stabling a loco because a place of that size simply wouldn't have had a shunting loco which needed to stand aside - the train engines would do the shunting.  Obviously it would make sense for the mill to have its loco spur and the latest plan shows as good an arrangement as any and it usefully doubles as a trap.

 

I do however come back to my earlier point abut making the 'main line' traction fit the era and area being modelled.  First of all, reiterating what others have said, t would be very unlikely to say the least that a 350 shunter (08) would be used on branch trips - they were too slow and they had plenty of other work in those days.  Using a 204hp shunter (03/04) is a possibility but in the early '60s they were ver much a geographical think when it came to branch line tripping - the WR used them in a few places as did the GE part of the ER but further north most branch freight remained steam worked until finally replaced by Type2s when enough became available.  Using a big Type 4 would be a distinct oddity in those f days as there weren't enough of them to cover main line work until more or less the end of steam when the final deliveries were taking place.

 

By the 1970s of course it was rather different but by then there weren't many branches left which were worked by 03 and 04 shunters.

[Compound2632]

I like this. It has the hallmarks of a layout conforming to 19th century BoT requirements, treating the double-track section as if it were double-track running line, with trailing connections only. In fact the single lip on the connection to the mill could become a plain diamond crossing, removing a facing point for arriving passenger trains - there's no need for a crossover here as that function is provided by the pointwork in front of the signalbox. I agree with the double slip as trap. I wonder if there's any evidence of those occasions when something has demolished the stop block and ended up in the river?

 

I wouldn't go near the small radius points if there's room to include medium. The loco release crossover seems to be drawn as combination of medium and large - beware that in Peco's geometry, these don't have quite the same crossing angle, so the formation will end up skewiff. Can I make a plea? When you lay the double track section, set the tracks to 45 mm centres, rather than Peco's 50 cm (or 2 in?). On a straight or very gently-curved section like this, there's no issue with overhang clearances. There are several advantages:

• it's (near enough) the prototype dimension
• it gains you 0.5 cm baseboard width
• it gains you a few cm in the length of a crossover - could even be enough to squeeze in large radius in lieu of medium!
• in trimming the points, you loose the hideous angled sleeper and can replicate the through-timbering often used on the prototype.
• may not apply in this case, but any over-bridges can be of the correct prototype proportions.

Re. Nearholmer's comment on the goods shed, thinking in line with the L&Y feel, perhaps one of the sidings at the front could run into the end of a large two-storey goods warehouse, only the end of which is modelled, providing scenic closure at that end of the layout. By the early 70s this would be in a state of dereliction; in the present day it would either have been swept away or converted to luxury flats!

 

I'm thinking of the trackplan as it would be in pre-grouping days; for a late60s/early 70s diesel grot layout (if you will pardon the expression), decisions need to be made about how much the layout has been rationalised - has the residual traffic justified any expenditure? How much of it should be laid with the new Peco bullhead points and crossings? (How deep are your pockets?) Is the signalbox still manned or has it been reduced to GF status, worked by the traincrew?

 

 

 

Edited September 3, 2019 by Compound2632

[Harlequin]

Sorry I didn't notice that the crossing from the run round loop to the mill was actually a slip. I agree with Stephen that a simple long diamond crossing would be better.

 

One other thing: Try to get rid of the short turnouts wherever you can, unless you really need the quick deviation for clearance (release crossover?) or you just want things to look like only wagons and small shunters would ever traverse them.

 

Everywhere else go for longer (larger radius) turnouts because it will look better and stock will move more smoothly. E.g. the turnout between the two goods sidings.

 

Edited September 3, 2019 by Harlequin

[Nearholmer]

A big brick/stone goods shed would help visual balance, which I think is going to be a challenge, but the L&Y did have small, combustible goods sheds too ...... Holcombe Brook again is an example, and BR-era photos show it in extremely decrepit condition, planks falling off etc.

[davegardnerisme]

50 minutes ago, The Stationmaster said:

I do however come back to my earlier point abut making the 'main line' traction fit the era and area being modelled.  First of all, reiterating what others have said, t would be very unlikely to say the least that a 350 shunter (08) would be used on branch trips - they were too slow and they had plenty of other work in those days.  Using a 204hp shunter (03/04) is a possibility but in the early '60s they were ver much a geographical think when it came to branch line tripping - the WR used them in a few places as did the GE part of the ER but further north most branch freight remained steam worked until finally replaced by Type2s when enough became available.  Using a big Type 4 would be a distinct oddity in those f days as there weren't enough of them to cover main line work until more or less the end of steam when the final deliveries were taking place.

 

 

Thanks for this ... it's great information to help me tune the layout operations and make it all more "right". I'm pretty much starting out with the railway, so I can, over time, add a few more locos to my collection and will research the options you mention.

[Flying Pig]

A bit behind the times, but here's the original scheme, which I still prefer, with a few tweaks.  The bay is gone and the siding pointwork is concentrated on the middle board, which allows for two sidings in the yard without looking unduly cramped, as well as lengthening the loop slightly.  I've forgotten to move the yard points up against the diamond to keep them off the board join but that shouldn't be a problem.

 

 

 

Edited September 3, 2019 by Flying Pig
Fixed errors in plan.

[davegardnerisme]

52 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

I like this. It has the hallmarks of a layout conforming to 19th century BoT requirements, treating the double-track section as if it were double-track running line, with trailing connections only. In fact the single lip on the connection to the mill could become a plain diamond crossing, removing a facing point for arriving passenger trains - there's no need for a crossover here as that function is provided by the pointwork in front of the signalbox. I agree with the double slip as trap. I wonder if there's any evidence of those occasions when something has demolished the stop block and ended up in the river?

 

I wouldn't go near the small radius points if there's room to include medium. 

 

Adjusted to remove all small radius points, and to swap for the fine scale long crossing (rather than double slip).

 

Quote

I'm thinking of the trackplan as it would be in pre-grouping days; for a late60s/early 70s diesel grot layout (if you will pardon the expression), decisions need to be made about how much the layout has been rationalised - has the residual traffic justified any expenditure? How much of it should be laid with the new Peco bullhead points and crossings? (How deep are your pockets?) Is the signalbox still manned or has it been reduced to GF status, worked by the traincrew?

 

A beginner question .. what is the difference here? I had been designing in the Pico 100 range, not the fine scale. Is it an interesting detail to have the main line be fine scale? What would this indicate in terms of tying it back to some kind of reality?

[davegardnerisme]

On 03/09/2019 at 11:39, The Stationmaster said:

I do however come back to my earlier point abut making the 'main line' traction fit the era and area being modelled.  First of all, reiterating what others have said, t would be very unlikely to say the least that a 350 shunter (08) would be used on branch trips - they were too slow and they had plenty of other work in those days.  Using a 204hp shunter (03/04) is a possibility but in the early '60s they were ver much a geographical think when it came to branch line tripping - the WR used them in a few places as did the GE part of the ER but further north most branch freight remained steam worked until finally replaced by Type2s when enough became available.  Using a big Type 4 would be a distinct oddity in those f days as there weren't enough of them to cover main line work until more or less the end of steam when the final deliveries were taking place.

 

By the 1970s of course it was rather different but by then there weren't many branches left which were worked by 03 and 04 shunters.

 

So in terms of stock, I'm thinking it would be reasonable to see passenger coaches a-la:

• https://www.hattons.co.uk/484413/hornby_r4234b_po_ex_lms_stanier_p3_corridor_first_m1080m_in_br_maroon_pre_owned_like_new/stockdetail.aspx
• https://www.hattons.co.uk/484413/hornby_r4234b_po_ex_lms_stanier_p3_corridor_first_m1080m_in_br_maroon_pre_owned_like_new/stockdetail.aspx

For shunting, I'm thinking a Class 31 seems a reasonable fit? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Rail_Class_31

 

My personal preference here is probably to run stock that makes sense for the layout if possible, but I'm not obsessive about it. My railway knowledge is poor, although I am keen to learn more.

 

Suggestions gratefully accepted!

[Compound2632]

For this period, any remaining passenger service would be a DMU, surely? Was not pre-Mk1 stock pretty much extinct except in a handful of exceptional cases?