First draft!

[Tallpaul69]

If you don't have many good points then it is better to draw the whole thing out full size then lay at minimum one track, better two and test that, then take it up and do the same for the rest of the plan.

If you lay the whole thing out with gash points nothing will work properly and you will soon get fed up!

 

Examine the fishplates on the points carefully. Even if they work otherwise and don't derail locos/stock they will not give good electrical connections and the train will stop for that.

 

It is best to make haste slowly as the old saying goes!!

 

Best of luck,

Regards

Paul

[rob D2]

Be an interesting place to model. Used to be my nearest mainline station as I’m Marlow born and bred.

 

i think it’s more realistic without the diamond crossing on the fast lines, I wouldn’t imagine that existed ?

 

NSE era - I wasn’t modelling then ( model before and after due girls getting in the way ) , will there be potential for loco hauled stoppers ?

[The Johnster]

I recommend buying points to replace any less than perfect ones as they will never work well and alway cause problems; there are few things more disheartening than a layout that cannot be made to run properly.  This means finalising your track plan and deciding on the radius and handedness of each point before you buy them.  Buy all the required points before you start final tracklaying.  If you want to use track pieces to plan the layout out as a sort of dry run, you might be better off to make card cutouts to represent the points and other set piece formations.

[KeithMacdonald]

1 hour ago, rob D2 said:

i think it’s more realistic without the diamond crossing on the fast lines, I wouldn’t imagine that existed ?

 

Err, looks like there were a few, but I don't know how a modeller could reproduce that kind of geometry, even using Peco diamond crossings?

 

Anyone got any ideas?

 

West of the station

 

 

East of the station

 

[rob D2]

1 hour ago, KeithMacdonald said:

 

Err, looks like there were a few, but I don't know how a modeller could reproduce that kind of geometry, even using Peco diamond crossings?

 

Anyone got any ideas?

 

West of the station

 

 

East of the station

 

True , but that’s like , 1920

im sure the fast lines would have been plain track by NSE , or high speed points like your diagram 

[The Johnster]

On 01/10/2019 at 18:52, codek said:

52 minutes ago, KeithMacdonald said:

 

Err, looks like there were a few, but I don't know how a modeller could reproduce that kind of geometry, even using Peco diamond crossings?

 

Anyone got any ideas?

 

West of the station

 

 

East of the station

 

 

The east end looks possible to approximate using Peco Streamline large radius turnouts and crossings, but the double junction off the relief roads at the west end leading on to the branch illustrates a problem for modellers using any form of RTP pointwork; nobody makes a diamond crossing with a curved road crossing a straight one.  

 

This means that, using any RTP geometry, the junction cannot be modelled correctly and takes more space than it would if the correct formation could be used.   A road coming off the branch platform also features curved track on the branch junction.  The only way these formations can be recreated is by scratch building them, something well beyond my ability!

[Harlequin]

The Peco short crossings are short enough that if inserted with curves on either side you wouldn't really notice that the curve wasn't continuous. And because they have a 24 degree crossing angle they work well with 12 degree turnouts branching off passing tracks, either straight or curved.

 

So I think it would be possible to do reasonable versions of both ends of the station as shown above in Streamline geometry.

 

But it's the wrong era and wouldn't fit in the OP's available space.

 

You usually can't just pick up a station plan from a map and plonk it on your baseboards. You have to compress and that often means leaving things out!

 

[KeithMacdonald]

Aha, thanks for the tip about the Peco crossings and 12 deg turnouts.

 

Like this?

 

West-end of station with branch.

 

 

East of station with two tracks crossing.

 

 

Looks like both would need a lot of space, And a lot of expensive Peco parts!

[codek]

Well you can't beat a mockup as they say!

 

Immediately i realised 2 parts that can be simplified.  I didnt see the point of having another point to access the branch after the platform, so that went.  This was originally there because of the sidings that i hadn't put in.

 

Also i simplified the western end.  again, it had connections between tracks, that given the direction, didnt seem to make sense? unless im missing something.

 

I think the curves will be livable, especially as i'll smooth out to the max with flexi track. And maybe i can devise a way to hide them!

 

I think operationally it'll work.?   I dont have a demu yet, but eyeing up a 2 coach Bachmann one.

 

Thoughts?

Edited October 4, 2019 by codek
classify

[Tallpaul69]

Can I suggest, before you get too involved in the minute detail of the Maidenhead track plan that you settle a basic question:-

 

And that is:-

Is this layout to be as accurate a model of Maidenhead as possible, but reduced in length and at a different alignment to the real station, or is it to be based on say the 1992 Maidenhead timetable but not called Maidenhead?

The answer to this question will send you on two completely different paths!

 

If you decide to model Maidenhead as accurately as possible and to call it Maidenhead, how accurate are you going to be? The real Maidenhead is on an embankment which affects the positioning and look of the station buildings. There is no relief from this to the east where there is a road under a wide bridge, although to the west and along the branch there are opportunities to enter cuttings. If the station is in prime position on your model then on a flat baseboard it will look noticeably different to the real thing.

 

So I suggest that you have to decide how much compromise on the real Maidenhead you can live with. You may need to carefully balance fidelity to tracks with fidelity to buildings and roads. You probably need to leave out features of each in equal measure to give the model balanced look.

 

If your decide your layout is based on Maidenhead, but not following it in detail, then you can call the station something different, perhaps drawing a local name from maps of the line to centre on a location that is not on an embankment. The track layout, buildings, and roads do not need to follow the real layout closely, but it needs to allow you to run the trains you want to run. 

 

In my layout, the station is not the focus, it will not be called Maidenhead, and the surrounding buildings will as accurately as space allows reflect the area of Maidenhead station but the positioning will be different to the real location. Currently there are two possible versions:-

In one the station is hidden behind an over bridge, and the branch rises on the outside of the layout and disappears behind houses. The main tracks will not be on an embankment.

In the other there will be a dropped section along the edge of some of the baseboards hinting at an embankment, which will rise at the ends to mimic the rise of the real station road at one end and the rise to the real bridge over the branch at the other. 

 

The above illustrates why many model, particularly for their first model, a location they have made up, but with a background story based on the real story of an area. There is no doubt It is easier to build.

 

Whichever way you go, keep at it, and keep sounding ideas out on this forum.

 

Cheers

Paul

[The Stationmaster]

The other thing which needs to be decided is the period which you are going to model track layout wise (I note you have said 'NSE' - so that presumably sets a livery period), so use the relevant track layoiut.   Maidenhead East Jcn was altered to single leads, sometimes called a ladder junction, a long time back.  The nearest point end to the station - in the Up Relief Line is almost a quarter of a mile away from the platform end and the whole ladder is in excess of a quarter of a mile long between the furthest point ends (Down Main Line to Up Relief Line).   So you are looking to compress an awful lot of railway (a quarter of a mile is 17ft 6" in 4mm scale) into a very short space which inevitably means that it won't fit (it doesn't) unless you have the large amount of room needed to achieve a realistic compression (and you haven't got that).

 

As you are going from double to quadruple track fairly  close to the station I would suggest you don't bother with the ladder and pay greater attention to getting the pointwork adjacent to the platform looking correct if you want to capture the spirit of the station serving 'the virgin city' (as we always called the place in years gone by.  So go back to your original and put in the connection from the branch platform into the Up Relief at the east end and the connection from the branch into the Up Relief and the west end plus the Relief Lines trailing crossover - if there is room for it - as they were in your original sketch and omit all other pointwork with the possible exception of the lead to the Up sidings (although in the soace you have I'd be inclined to leave that out as well.  And ignore that 1920s track layout, it's over 50 years since Maidenhead looked anything at all like that!

 

Operationally it won't be much different from what you ariginally had in my but it will look a massively less crowded and better.

[B McG]

Following from others comments about points I've had a crack on the OP's original layout using XTrackCAD and medium radius Peco streamline points.  By eliminating a set of points for the branch line the adjacent platform should accommodate a DMU.  The other two platforms should accommodate 5 to 6 coach rakes of MK1 or 2's, I've also put possible scenic breaks as thick black lines.  Using other streamline points it should be possible to have at least 8 lines in the fiddle yard.  Hope that helps!

 

Cheers

Bryant

[codek]

Excellent stuff.

 

Operationally i don't get the point of the crossing points on the west side? any ideas?  how would these be used?  the ones inside the platforms..   I think i'm missing something. slightly easier when the directional arrows are on there!

Edited October 6, 2019 by codek

[Flying Pig]

For background, this is Maidenhead from the 1989 Quail, which is pretty much as in codek's OP.  

 

As an alternative approach to this layout, could the fast and slow lines be taken right round, with their own separate staging loops, eliminating the double junctions which seem to be consuming a lot of space?

 

[The Stationmaster]

21 hours ago, Flying Pig said:

For background, this is Maidenhead from the 1989 Quail, which is pretty much as in codek's OP.  

 

As an alternative approach to this layout, could the fast and slow lines be taken right round, with their own separate staging loops, eliminating the double junctions which seem to be consuming a lot of space?

 

 

Exactly so and going back to my previous post you could reduce the modelled area down to no more than this, or possibly a bit less than this as far as the branch is concerned/.  You'll then have a far more realistic impression of Maidenhead than is given by that ladder junction sprawling all over the place (assuming of course that you want a realistic impression with all four principal running lines?).

 

22 hours ago, codek said:

Excellent stuff.

 

Operationally i don't get the point of the crossing points on the west side? any ideas?  how would these be used?  the ones inside the platforms..   I think i'm missing something. slightly easier when the directional arrows are on there!

There is no point whatsoever in having those two trailing crossovers at the west end.  The one on the Main Lines is introducing something which has never existed within the area of the platforms and the various bits of pointwork on the Main Lines west of the platform were taken away about 100 years ago!  

 

Equally the Relief Lines trailing crossover at the west end of the station had - for at least 100 years - been some way to the west of the platform ends beyond the original branch junction, where it actually had a purpose; it doesn't really have any purpose situated in the platform area where it just chews up space.

 

I would still go for omitting any sort of attempt at reproducing the ladder as it takes away an awful lot of space and in fact as drawn in BMcG's plan isn't particularly useful anyway as the only prototype move it reproduces in the NSE livery era layout is from Down Main to Down Relief although it was signalled for a move to the branch bay but I doubt very much if that move has ever been used (things could well change with Crossrail).  The other most used move through the ladder is Up Relief to Up Main but the layout as drawn doesn't allow that anyway.  But it does allow branch bay to/from either Relief Line - for which the necessary trailing crossover could easily be moved to a more realistic position which would allow the platform ends to be much more realistically aligned with each other although again these were not particularly common moves except for the empty branch unit.

[codek]

Ok thanks all. I'm definitely liking the idea of capturing the essence of it. I'll have a play around later in the week.

 

For me the essence really is the 4 lines, loco hauled, intercitys (non stoppers too!) and then some fun stuff!