Jump to content

davegardnerisme

End of Branchline terminus layout advice

Recommended Posts

I wouild councel against trimming the turnouts to adjust the track spacing because:

  • It's your first layout and the standard Peco spacing will look perfectly fine to most people.
  • It will make it more difficult to swap turnouts if you're still in the planning phase.
  • At a terminus the spacing of a platform line and run round may well have been wider than normal running lines.
  • It could throw things out of whack, especially where you are joining turnouts that are still turning after the vee, such as large radius and curved turnouts.
  • It will save you a lot of trouble and avoid potential damage.

Are you sure the large radius in the throat doesn't throw the main line too far towards the front of the layout? And by using the left immediately after the right hand curve of the mainline you will have a worse reverse curve on entry/exit from the run round and goods sidings. The Y was a much larger radius so less of an issue and even better would be to use a right whsoe curve would become parts of the mainline curve. That last change could move everything, possibly for the better, so it would be better to assess its impact in software.

 

If you wanted to avoid the double-slip being used as a trap in the throat (Edit: because people have questioned such a complex bit of trackwork in that location) you could use a 3-way (to replace the part of the slip the joins the run round to the goods and the following goods siding turnout) and a right-hand trap. It would widen the spacing between the mainline and the run round loop to about 64mm, though. That's not necessarily a problem - just something to deal with

 

Are you using Code 100 track for particular reason?

 

Edited by Harlequin
  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
13 minutes ago, Harlequin said:

I wouild councel against trimming the turnouts to adjust the track spacing because:

  • It's your first layout and the standard Peco spacing will look perfectly fine to most people.
  • It will make it more difficult to swap turnouts if you're still in the planning phase.
  • At a terminus the spacing of a platform line and run round may well have been wider than normal running lines.
  • It could throw things out of whack, especially where you are joining turnouts that are still turning after the vee, such as large radius and curved turnouts.
  • It will save you a lot of trouble and avoid potential damage.

Are you sure the large radius in the throat doesn't throw the main line too far towards the front of the layout? And by using the left immediately after the right hand curve of the mainline you will have a worse reverse curve on entry/exit from the run round and goods sidings. The Y was a much larger radius so less of an issue and even better would be to use a right whsoe curve would become parts of the mainline curve. That last change could move everything, possibly for the better, so it would be better to assess its impact in software.

 

If you wanted to avoid the double-slip being used as a trap in the throat (Edit: because people have questioned such a complex bit of trackwork in that location) you could use a 3-way (to replace the part of the slip the joins the run round to the goods and the following goods siding turnout) and a right-hand trap. It would widen the spacing between the mainline and the run round loop to about 64mm, though. That's not necessarily a problem - just something to deal with

 

Are you using Code 100 track for particular reason?

 


Will think more about spacing. 
 

On the large radius turnout — the impact, I think, hasn’t been to change the angle of the station track, or move it towards the front. What it does do is send the mainline off in a direction that takes it away from the mill sidings, and then it will turn back away from the front of the board either starting on the bridge, or after it. I thought this was better because it increases the separation between these elements. 
 

peco 100 is for three reasons:

 

1. I’ve bought a bunch of it already! Although I’m not entirely averse to replacing

2. As far as I can tell many of the points are only available in this range? (Or am I mistaken)?

3. I don’t really understand the difference

 

And maybe as well being a first layout is relevant: eg it’s probably going to be a learning exercise anyway, so maybe not having top of the range track work won’t stand out in the end anyway (over for example dodgy looking landscaping as I learn and practice all the techniques etc)


For the double slip .. I’ve made my peace with the unnecessary complexity here. I don’t understand exactly where the 3 way would go either to replace it. Could be changed though. 
 

I’m thinking next I will try to get the main line finalised and fixed. Although this may take a bit of time since I’m planning wire in tube for points, and also I think it would make sense before fixing things down to plan where any signals will be. 

 

Please keep the advice coming! I’m starting to realise this is a long term endeavour, so decisions made now will have to be lived with for many years!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, davegardnerisme said:

peco 100 is for three reasons:

 

1. I’ve bought a bunch of it already! Although I’m not entirely averse to replacing

2. As far as I can tell many of the points are only available in this range? (Or am I mistaken)?

3. I don’t really understand the difference

 

Code 75 rail is closer to scale. The Code 75 range includes parts with all the same geometries as Code 100, with the exception of the 3-way, which is asymmetric in Code 75 and symmetric in Code 100. There is also some variation in insulfrog/electrofrog availability - you can get Code 75 electrofrog slips, for instance, where you currently have to put up with insulfrog.

 

If you are only going to be buying modern RTR rolling stack (with finer wheel flanges) you don't need Code 100.

 

Quick sketch of Code 75 3-way asymmetric turnout and trap connection between run round, goods and main line.

307598033_Daveisme5detail.png.a50ff5c2efe2c6fd3656ff27ba492d8d.png

 

Edited by Harlequin
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, davegardnerisme said:


Any guidance for how much trimming needed?

 

 

Be bloody, bold and resolute:

 

1490852494_Mediumcrossing45mmcentres.jpg.097b5f72a891b8ba7f4bb3717e9038f2.jpg

 

Medium radius points shown. Remove 3 sleepers from the divergent track on one point, two on the other, and line the sleepers up a bit more neatly than I've done with these paper templates! 

 

As supplied, track centres 52 mm, length of crossing (tiebar-to-tiebar) 452 mm;

as modified, centres 45 mm, length of crossing 421 mm;

space-saving 7 mm width, 31 mm length. 

 

As a refinement, trim the crossing rail on each point back by just one sleeper but the stock rail back by four; the stock rails can then slide into the chairs on the opposing point, locking the crossing together. There's then no need for an insulating rail joiner, if you leave a slight gap between the rails for electrical insulation.

 

@Harlequin's observation that on the prototype, centres might be a bit more generous at a terminus run-round may be true (though there are plenty of examples where it's not) but with the narrow gauge of 00 we need all the help we can get to give the illusion of reality.

 

I've been making this modification since I first aspired to a model railway that looked something like the real thing at the age of 15, nearly four decades ago. Unfortunately my current layout, which is a terminus goods station, is mothballed.

Edited by Compound2632
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Availability of turnouts is restricted for Peco code 75 bullhead, and if I were to convert to code 75 which I am considering, it would be to bullhead for the sake of appearance.  The bullhead range is a relatively recent introduction and diamonds and slips are not yet available but no doubt will be eventually assuming Peco consider the range successful.  The problem is that RTR bullhead falls between two stools; finescale modellers are usually capable of building their own pointwork and many RTR modellers are content with fb code 100, particularly if they have older stock with coarser flanges.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Code 100 isn't a terrible thing. Decently painted and ballasted and you're not likely to be bothered by it being not as good as 75. If you didn't already own some that would be one thing, but if your existing kit is 100 then IMO it's not worth rebuying it all for a layout that's intended as a first draft.

 

Of course, use of heavier rail for the main line then allows you to use some 75 to represent more lightly laid sidings etc, if your so wish. But that might draw attention in the wrong way...

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, The Johnster said:

Availability of turnouts is restricted for Peco code 75 bullhead, and if I were to convert to code 75 which I am considering, it would be to bullhead for the sake of appearance.  The bullhead range is a relatively recent introduction and diamonds and slips are not yet available but no doubt will be eventually assuming Peco consider the range successful.

 

Bullhead long crossing, single slip, and double slip are all expected this year according to Peco, with medium radius turnouts expected next year to join the existing large radius turnouts.

 

https://peco-uk.com/blogs/news/code-75-bullhead-update

  • Informative/Useful 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I’ve no problem with code 100; for me the advantage of code 75 is appearance; bullhead rail with chairs. 

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought I'd try my little operation with the Peco bullhead points:

 

1319922482_Bullheadlongcrossing45mmcentres.jpg.50eefd539641e786e224b3e29be2f976.jpg

 

... removing one sleeper from one point and two from the other.

 

This isn't quite so satisfactory with the large radius points as in order to get the same angle of divergence at the end of the unit, the track continues to curve through and after the crossing, whereas for the medium radius points, the curve finishes before the crossing and the rail is straight through and beyond the crossing. This means that the crossing angle is less for the large radius points. A consequence is, if you are modifying the Peco points in this way, if you have the classic combination of point and single slip to give a crossing between the running lines combined with yard access, it's better to use the medium radius points. (This applies to the Code 100, Code 75, and bullhead points, which share the same geometry.)

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Compound2632 I have just chopped up my first two points, and it looks pretty good!

 

I've also realised that by chopping up points I can actually engineer a much stronger board join - I can actually adjust the angle of the cut slightly on the two joining pieces so that the cut aligns with the board edge.

 

I just need to figure out how much room to leave for the station so I can get the angle correct.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi everyone

 

Some progress has been made! Most notably I switched to code 75 track, and started laying the track including point motors. This involves some of the mods that we talked about on this thread - eg trimming turnouts to bring the tracks closer together.

 

I kicked off a thread on the signalling thread to work out how I should be signalling the layout. 

 


I now have a couple of layout challenges that were highlighted when discussing signalling, and stemming from actually arranging the track on the boards. 

 

  1. The loop seems small (observation from signalling thread)
  2. The track work around the three way point is a bit tight, and there are some kinks that might need ironing out

Here's some pics.

 

IMG_7633.JPG.a801a213ba73fcaa1b76de7a9a562863.JPG

 

IMG_2937.JPG.d288fe9e4f52172c27fc41c496e029b1.JPG

 

IMG_7871.JPG.eafe30f621ff1342a733af8fa7a505cb.JPG

 

It would be great to get thoughts on what I think are my options:

 

  • Live with it (short loop, slight kinks)
  • Swap three way for double slip again (avoids need for separate trap and therefore probably irons out some kinks .. but doesn't increase loop length)
  • Move the first turnout to the other side of the bridge, extending the loop and making the main bridge a double track bridge (this potentially avoids kinks and makes the loop longer .. but does it adversely impact the balance of the layout and the mill sidings feature?)

NOTE: the first board track is stuck down now, the second board is still moveable.

 

Thanks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It looks ok to me, but I do suggest you get rid of that wierd plank thing on the sleepers of the trap point.

 

andy g

Edited by uax6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 09/09/2019 at 19:55, Compound2632 said:

I thought I'd try my little operation with the Peco bullhead points:

 

, if you have the classic combination of point and single slip to give a crossing between the running lines combined with yard access, it's better to use the medium radius points. (This applies to the Code 100, Code 75, and bullhead points, which share the same geometry.)

The catch though, as I found after buying a couple of Peco slips from a friend, is that their effective radius is that of a short rather than a medium turnout. I thought I could get a shorter version of the classic Minories throat by replacing the two back to back points with a single slip but when I tried it out with actual stock, the throwover between passenger coaches was absurd.

  • Agree 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That run round looks much too short to me, A crossover with a left and a right hand point would keep the basic geometry and lengthen the loop 9" or most of a coach.     To lose the kink I would use a large(?) radius Right hand point instead of a left.  If I used a left I would use part of a short radius left point to create a catch point instead of the essentially straight peco unit.   But then again I have a box of broken and damaged points to hack around so points don't cost me £15 a throw.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Dave,

 

The kink happens because the trap and the other short bit of track widen the spacing between the platform line and the run round loop and then you are trying to bring them back to the normal spacing very quickly. It's a difficult problem to solve nicely with Peco fixed geometry and since the signalling thread reckoned that the trap should bring vehicles to a halt clear of the main running line, and that it was perfectly acceptable to use a double slip to form the trap, that seems far and away the best solution.

 

I guess that no carriages or other long vehicles would ever take a turning route through the slip so its rather sharp radius shouldn't be a problem in practice.

 

To make the run round loop longer:

Push the loco release crossover as far left as you can and use the smallest radius points you can. Small (2ft) radius should be fine because, again, long vehicles are never going to traverse that crossover - and certainly never propelling each other.

 

You could move the right hand end of the run round loop across the river but I don't think it would be very useful because the platform and and goods sidings impose limits on sensible train lengths. Making the run round loop longer is nice but becoems more of a luxury than a necessity.

 

The platform length is limited mainly by the position of the crossing into the mill yard. By connecting the mill line into the run round you are forced to use a long diamond and that in turns means it has to be further left to get good separation between the yard and the main line. That limits the platform length.

The short diamond separates the lines better and so it can be positioned further to the right but that then has to connect into the goods yard, as I suggested above. Imagine that the station was built with a long(ish) platform before the Mill's private railway system was created. Then the Mill owners requested a connection. The railway company certainly wouldn't want to do any major rebullding or to shorten the platform. In the very tight space available connecting into the goods sidings might be the only feasible option. (And the short crossing looks much more industrial then the long.)

 

I think it's possible to make the Mill railway more operationally independent and more interesting if you want.

 

BTW: You really do need to think about your fiddle yard as well before you go much further because it affects how and where the main line exits the scene.

 

Edited by Harlequin
  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Harlequin said:

Hi Dave,

 

The kink happens because the trap and the other short bit of track widen the spacing between the platform line and the run round loop and then you are trying to bring them back to the normal spacing very quickly. It's a difficult problem to solve nicely with Peco fixed geometry and since the signalling thread reckoned that the trap should bring vehicles to a halt clear of the main running line, and that it was perfectly acceptable to use a double slip to form the trap, that seems far and away the best solution.

 

Agreed. I played with it for a while but in the end I went back to double slip and it was much easier to make it work nicely. 

 

21 hours ago, Harlequin said:

To make the run round loop longer:

Push the loco release crossover as far left as you can and use the smallest radius points you can. Small (2ft) radius should be fine because, again, long vehicles are never going to traverse that crossover - and certainly never propelling each other.

 

The loop is fixed now. It’s a little shorter than it could be, but not enough to make me want to change it. I think at some point perfect becomes the enemy of good. I’m keen to keep pushing forward. 

 

21 hours ago, Harlequin said:

You could move the right hand end of the run round loop across the river but I don't think it would be very useful because the platform and and goods sidings impose limits on sensible train lengths. Making the run round loop longer is nice but becoems more of a luxury than a necessity.

 

Agreed. I mocked it up (loop crossing river) but it just didn’t look right. There wasn’t really enough track then that wasn’t in the loop! I’ve stuck it all down now. 

 

21 hours ago, Harlequin said:

The platform length is limited mainly by the position of the crossing into the mill yard. By connecting the mill line into the run round you are forced to use a long diamond and that in turns means it has to be further left to get good separation between the yard and the main line. That limits the platform length.

 

Hopefully it won’t look to short when it’s all done. We shall see. It’s all fixed now. 
 

21 hours ago, Harlequin said:

I think it's possible to make the Mill railway more operationally independent and more interesting if you want.

 

Yes! This is an area I’m interested in exploring. I’m inspired by some of Chris Nevard’s dioramas and small layouts. Eg 

Brew Street

 

I’m thinking I could design a mini layout within an layout, perhaps with rails disappearing off scene. So far I’ve not fixed any of this line.

 

21 hours ago, Harlequin said:

 

BTW: You really do need to think about your fiddle yard as well before you go much further because it affects how and where the main line exits the scene.


I’ve sort of already got this set (see pics below). Maybe I need to rethink. I was half thinking the fiddle yard board could be another 1m board, perhaps with some scenery and the tunnel entrance, to stretch everything. Not sure though. It’s already pretty big for my house (and no real permanent home for it, yet). 
 

So my next steps are, I think

 

1. Sort out basic contours of the landscape and decide more concretely where river will be and mill sidings bridge. 
2. Try to plan roughly where the buildings will sit within the landscape - perhaps doing full size mock ups of them.

3. Plan the mill private railway (I guess this will be in conjunction with 2)

 

3551BFBE-16C4-4AE3-B6F1-F095ACE6E0C6.jpeg.4ad5287e8adcc3d33af8910819a41373.jpeg

 

B5E3EC73-44D4-44DE-BDFF-4E7050B93533.jpeg.f57e8da6416580864ee8a927790a002a.jpeg

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looks like you're getting there and ironing out some issues. I too am trying a similar layout with a station and an industrial "private" business in the background. As I was trying the design phase, I was informed that mainline, and the privately owned locos can't operate on each others' networks. Particularly the heavier mainline engines on the industrial tracks which may have a much lighter loading gauge, and so this lead to a need of exchange sidings being introduced. I am not sure how common this was across the other regions of the network but certainly applies to my design. Which also opens the door to being able to handle passenger workings, general freight, a freight dedicated to the private industry with the need to shunt it into the sidings. And, an industrial engine that handles the in and outbound goods where the mainline engines can pick and drop them off.

 

On a slight tangent, but seems to work very well looking at your layout design, but to me. The perfect branch terminus of all time for Aesthetics and operational scopes is Ashburton in South Devon,  just so much you can do there. Not sure, how much you may be able to transcribe and incorporate into your ideas, but may help trying to a replicate a prototypical location.

track_plan.gif

Edited by kirkheath
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, kirkheath said:

Looks like you're getting there and ironing out some issues. I too am trying a similar layout with a station and an industrial "private" business in the background. As I was trying the design phase, I was informed that mainline, and the privately owned locos can't operate on each others' networks. Particularly the heavier mainline engines on the industrial tracks which may have a much lighter loading gauge, and so this lead to a need of exchange sidings being introduced. I am not sure how common this was across the other regions of the network but certainly applies to my design. Which also opens the door to being able to handle passenger workings, general freight, a freight dedicated to the private industry with the need to shunt it into the sidings. And, an industrial engine that handles the in and outbound goods where the mainline engines can pick and drop them off.

 

 

It was not at all unusual for main line company/BR engines to be allowed into private sidings or part of of a private siding complex although of necessity tight curvature and various other physical features could limit the types of engine permitted into such places.  For example on the 2 mile long Penarth Harbour freight only branchline in South Wales GWR, and subsequently BR engines were allowed to work into 11 of the 14 private sidings on that branch.  In many cases the railway simply could not be worked in a manner which enabled exchange of traffic with private sidings unless such access was permitted or, as note below, the private sidings engine was authorised to work out onto BR lines.

 

Rather less common, but still far from unusual, was the opposite situation where privately owned engines were permitted to run onto main line company/BR lines in order - usually - to access sidings where traffic was exchanged between the private siding and the main line network.

  • Informative/Useful 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, The Stationmaster said:

It was not at all unusual for main line company/BR engines to be allowed into private sidings or part of of a private siding complex although of necessity tight curvature and various other physical features could limit the types of engine permitted into such places.  For example on the 2 mile long Penarth Harbour freight only branchline in South Wales GWR, and subsequently BR engines were allowed to work into 11 of the 14 private sidings on that branch.  In many cases the railway simply could not be worked in a manner which enabled exchange of traffic with private sidings unless such access was permitted or, as note below, the private sidings engine was authorised to work out onto BR lines.

 

Rather less common, but still far from unusual, was the opposite situation where privately owned engines were permitted to run onto main line company/BR lines in order - usually - to access sidings where traffic was exchanged between the private siding and the main line network.

Ah ok I see, that confuses matters so disregard that then haha. I will use that scenario on my layout though, as I like the idea of the two engines interacting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Talk of exchange sidings has brought me back to the private sidings design. I'm trying to add more detail to the design so that I can spend time creating the buildings. With the space I have available, this is achievable to fit around other commitments, but I do need to figure out what size they need to be.

 

So far I've got this:

 

privatesidings.png.e8646884e4d9f7dd5dc53acb14ab7e3d.png

 

I've been collating inspiration here. I think this terrace would not look out of place behind the station building, and I like the mix of stone and red brick used at Healey New Mill (plus a photo from its heyday).

 

Keen to hear alternative suggestions for the private sidings ... I have been trying to think of ways to make them appear part of a larger private railway, but I don't think I've cracked it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 01/09/2019 at 14:24, davegardnerisme said:

 

Agreed - I'm going to stick with it.

 

Some more research suggests that mills moved to electric looms after the Second World War

 

 

https://kwvr.co.uk/explore/the-local-area/

 

So I can either leave out the coal siding, or I could have it disused/in disrepair.

 

I also found some fascinating aerial pictures of northern mills which show how large they are:

 

Stanley Graham, spoke about the mill he worked at in 1978 or so, and how he managed to @#[email protected]#$ up and get it closed by pointing out that there was a thousand quid of coal in the yard...the "new" management burned it all, then closed the mill.  Documented in the The Lancashire Textile Project,  https://oneguyfrombarlick.co.uk/  .  So, it is possible the mill would be rail served, by 16 ton wagons, into I'd guess, the mid 70's....

 

James

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the station and goods yard laout works well and is nice.  I think for the design for going into the mill though, what purpose do the two spurs (excluding the mill siding) serve? Is one of them for coal store?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's my earlier idea fleshed out a bit:

Daveisme6d.png.6173b2926c252c545cf6bc5f69ddedf2.png

 

The crossing angle is wider and that allows the platform to be longer and the private railway to be separated better from the main line.

The mill private railway runs around the front on the mill/warehouse and into a simple yard. On the left it dives into an open shed and when it's hidden, turns back under the cover of some low relief buildings to create a headhsunt.

On the right the private railway disappears behind a wall and enter the fiddle yard. The mill complex buildings hide a line connecting the private railway's headhsunt with the fiddle yard. This allows the yard shunter to move around in interesting ways and allows it to run round wagons.

The private railway would be embedded in the yard surface and that would hide the two settrack 2nd radius points.

 

The back link between the open shed and the mill complex should probably be hidden but I haven't shown anything yet.

 

I haven't made too much effort to line everything up or work out building interfaces so things might need shuffling a bit.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The factory complex looks very interesting, but we now have a goods yard with very little road access to the sidings. Can the factory access line and the 2 goods sidings be curved a bit to allow this to be improved?

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1

Share this post


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

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.