GW Adventure - a track planning tale

[The Stationmaster]

Don't overdo the siding length at the 'upper' station - it is is long enough to hold a single vehicle then you have potential for tail traffic especially if you can work in a second platform at that station/. Not at all unusual to have a short dock siding which could only hold one or two vehicles which was used for tail traffic.  If you could do that you'll have added a very different type of operation to the layout so creating more variety.

[Keith Addenbrooke]

1 hour ago, The Stationmaster said:

Don't overdo the siding length at the 'upper' station - it is is long enough to hold a single vehicle then you have potential for tail traffic especially if you can work in a second platform at that station/. Not at all unusual to have a short dock siding which could only hold one or two vehicles which was used for tail traffic.  If you could do that you'll have added a very different type of operation to the layout so creating more variety.

Agreed - another nice idea, thank you.  Even as I was adding it, I was thinking that the longer the siding got the worse it looked (and the more it drew attention to the tight curve on the incoming running line).
I was thinking of going back to having just the loop, but the dock siding is a good idea, especially as there won’t be an equivalent at the lower station.

[Rivercider]

I can see now the reasons for the questions asked in your previous threads, and understand your wish to be able to create a little branchline empire. There have been a lot of constructive comments, and the plans do look railway like. I agree with Mike the Stationmaster that the last version with the 'northern' loop (and siding) gives the most operating potential.

The track plan reminds me a little of various locations along the Teign Valley route. If the branch to Chagford had ever been built (a branch off a branch) then it would be even more like the sort of train service you envisage.

 

cheers

[Edwardian]

I like the plan as it has evolved very much, and gratefully adopt Mike the Stationmaster's wisdom on the matter.

 

I look forward to seeing the build, so I hope you will post progress here. 

 

On 19/05/2020 at 06:32, Keith Addenbrooke said:

 

 

 

 

 

I was utterly enchanted by the book cover you posted. 

 

What a splendid and resonant nom de plume, Boomer Pete.

 

It made me concerned that I don't have a pipe.  Having a pipe seems quite important, indeed, it could be where I have been going wrong all these years. 

 

Then I read "A hundred ways to have more fun with your pike" and I am afraid I just lost control ... not yet regained.  I must be at a difficult age.

 

Best of luck with the layout.

 

 

[Zomboid]

Boomer Pete could be the name he actually goes by. A man named Boomer Esiason used to play quarterback for the Cincinnati Bengals.

Edited May 21, 2020 by Zomboid
Autocorrect messing up American names

[Keith Addenbrooke]

Thank you all – some really encouraging responses, which are much appreciated.

 

My next step will be to redraw the plan that has evolved with a shorter loading dock siding at the top or North Station, just to make sure that I’ve optimised the spacings and not put in any kinks in the Flextrack joints.  There's an excellent article on how to do this in the June 2020 BRM magazine (second part of a two-part Series that began in the May edition).

 

When I’ve done that I’ll post it here to complete the story.  It will be the layout I aim to build.

 

 

 

One thing to be aware of when including a Setrack Y point is that the geometry is slightly different to that of Streamline: if I’ve followed it correctly Setrack angles work on halving – a double curve is 45 degrees, a single curve (or standard point) is 22.5 degrees and the Wye point is 11.25 degrees (Hornby's Express point has the same 11.25 degrees I think).  Streamline points work with a consistent 12 degrees, so even though the Setrack Wye has a generous radius, there’s a 0.75 degree difference to smooth when mixing track.

 

I think it just remains to briefly cover a couple of good ideas raised in the thread:

One excellent suggestion for a different type of layout in the same space is one where only one end of a Station is modelled.  Two of my personal all-time favourite UK outline layouts use this approach: Jon Grant’s Hudson Road (BRM Jan ’13 and RM Jan ’04) and the Macclesfield Club’s Hammeston Wharf (BRM Feb ’07).  Both are mainly rural with road bridges as scenic exits, though both are larger, straight layouts. 

 

In this space you could take one of the ‘Fairford inspired’ layouts I posted earlier (I’d suggest the second one) and place a gently curved backscene diagonally across the layout from top left to bottom right.  The A417 roadbridge would be moved to the other end of the platform, so just the end still showed, with the backscene running behind it.  The rest of the curved platform would no longer be needed, it is ‘off-stage’.

 

With a small continuous run layout, an urban scene can be one way of hiding curved platforms, so I had a quick doodle to see what might fit in my space.  This is very much a working drawing, not a finished idea:

 

 

I included a slip point to suggest a busier, more cramped setting.  It’s not a main line station – trains are 3 coaches long, although one dodge often suggested for micro-layouts is to include several overbridges or scene blockers so a whole train never shows.  I don’t know if this idea has potential: my own view is that it could look great if straightened out between two train-table fiddle yards, as a place to watch trains pass through or shunting, rather than watching each train make its journey all around the layout.

 

I sketched it to see if I was tempted to develop it further: it could be good, but I'm happy with the plan we've been looking at.  

 

The other question was whether the layout could be enlarged - to get away from the 8’ x 4’ table top.  While it would change my Given No. 3, there are good reasons for the question, not least that the total layout space could actually become smaller at the same time as the layout appears to get bigger.

 

An 8’ x 4’ board may ideally want a 2’ aisle on at least three sides –preferably including both the long ones.  This means a 32 sq. ft. layout could use up to 80 sq. ft. (10’ x 8’).

 

Harlequin suggested one way of cutting exactly the same sized boards I have to make a 9’ x 5’6” layout with a central operating well: no need for aisles outside.  There's no more scenery to build, and this size of layout could perhaps fit comfortably in a shed.  I did a very quick doodle to overlay the proposed layout onto that size of board just to see how it compared:

 

 

Points to note:

 

1.  Immediately, the Upper Station can breathe.  It can have two platforms and a scenic setting.  Big win.

2.  I’ve shown the shorter Loading Dock Siding – 12” should leave space for a Siphon G as a guide?  Search RMweb (or Google) for "tail traffic" and you'll find a 2009 thread by The Stationmaster that explains tail traffic and mixed trains.  Both could run on this layout.

3.  The Goods Sidings at the lower station can be spread out and lengthened a bit – I’ve not checked, but I there should be enough space for a horse and cart to turn between the tracks.

4.  The end curves can be eased.  This is a quick sketch, and I kept my 3rd radius Setrack curves across the baseboard joints, but the Flextrack portions have a minimum radius of 30.”  The alignment of these could be improved and easement curves introduced by maybe having a gently curved top Station platform?

5.  The shorter side board could be a lift-out, perhaps set lower than the other boards with a bridge across a river valley, for example.  There are plenty of layouts that do this very well, and in the room where I’m looking to operate the layout it would be the thing people saw when they came in: a feature.

 

For me, the drawing was to see if I wanted to try and fit it into the room I can use.  My ‘aisles’ aren’t actually 2’ wide to begin with, but the family are happy for the layout to take up 8’ x 4’, which is an important factor. From a layout point of view there are clear benefits to the expanded version with a central operating well – it makes its own case, but I have to take into consideration three other factors too: 

 

i)  My layout has to be portable and must be set up in a multi-use office to the satisfaction of other users.

 

ii) It has to fit into the storage space I have in mind – note: that could determine the actual board sizes.

 

iii)  And it has to be transportable between the two – size and weight of boards is again the constraint.

 

Having re-measured the space and looked at the fixtures and fittings around the room (there are a lot, including fitted furniture and a fireplace that belong to the house – which we don’t own), and having looked at moving boards round the house and storage, four 4’ x 2’ boards still work best for me.  It's perhaps the biggest 'Rule 1' compromise I'm making.

 

I really like the look and feel of the 8’ x 4’ design that’s working best – I look at it and I’d like to build it.  I’m not an experienced layout builder, but I’m keen to get started, and that’s a really good outcome for me.  Thanks, Keith.

 

Edited October 3, 2022 by Keith Addenbrooke
Reinstating photos

[Harlequin]

Hi Keith,

The Streamline small Y has a total deviation of 24degs, I.e. 12 for each arm, so not that different to the set track part and a better fit in your design.

 

[Keith Addenbrooke]

1 minute ago, Harlequin said:

Hi Keith,

The Streamline small Y has a total deviation of 24degs, I.e. 12 for each arm, so not that different to the set track part and a better fit in your design.

 

 

Agreed - I already have a Setrack one, and currently supplies of Streamline are limited.  I'm thinking I'll probably draw up two versions, one with each, so I can drop in a Streamline point if they become available again before I get that far (which is more than likely).

[The Stationmaster]

4 hours ago, Keith Addenbrooke said:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A single slip would make a lot more sense - very much in GWR style as it happens but you need to ensure that the middle line of the three is a looped siding with the line nearer the carriage siding being the running line.  It doesn't work all that well visually overall because GW middle line looped sidings were usually found where the platforms flamked the running lines and were not island platforms.  But it has the makings of something rather different.

 

This is how it looked at a single line passing station -

 

https://www.s-r-s.org.uk/html/gwf/S976.htm

Edited May 21, 2020 by The Stationmaster

[Keith Addenbrooke]

Final Design marked out in Anyrail: there should be room for a low relief platform on the outer running line at the top station.  The exact alignment of the 11" loading dock siding may change to a more gentle curve to give a bit more space.  Where I have quoted a radius it is the minimum on that piece.  Next stop: the workshop.  Keith.
 

Edited October 3, 2022 by Keith Addenbrooke
Reinstating photo

[Flying Pig]

On 21/05/2020 at 17:44, Keith Addenbrooke said:

Final Design marked out in Anyrail: there should be room for a low relief platform on the outer running line at the top station.  The exact alignment of the 11" loading dock siding may change to a more gentle curve to give a bit more space.  Where I have quoted a radius it is the minimum on that piece.  Next stop: the workshop.  Keith.

 

 

A few quick ideas sketched roughly on your very neat plan:

 

- the layout at the lower station still looks a bit symmetrical; I've tried to break this by straightening one of the sidings (I've plonked an engine shed on it but it would work as a headshunt) and suggesting a large industry behind the other (an attractive 19th century mill perhaps)

 

- loading docks were frequently built onto the back of a platform as I've suggested in red; I think you have the room for that as your upper loop is much longer than the lower and you won't need the whole length for platforms; again it helps break the symmetry and you can use the top left siding for something else like another industry.

[Keith Addenbrooke]

3 minutes ago, Flying Pig said:

 

A few quick ideas sketched roughly on your very neat plan:

 

- the layout at the lower station still looks a bit symmetrical; I've tried to break this by straightening one of the sidings (I've plonked an engine shed on it but it would work as a headshunt) and suggesting a large industry behind the other (an attractive 19th century mill perhaps)

 

- loading docks were frequently built onto the back of a platform as I've suggested in red; I think you have the room for that as your upper loop is much longer than the lower and you won't need the whole length for platforms; again it helps break the symmetry and you can use the top left siding for something else like another industry.

 

Nice ideas thankyou - several of my iterations had a small engine shed, but on the other siding of the pair: swapping it like this leaves more room for an industry: I think there’s room, so it should work where you have it.  One advantage hopefully of having Flextrack sidings is that I can reconfigure them by eye when it comes to it, so I can see what I like the look of (I’m not constrained by Setrack geometry or straight lines).  I’ve also held back from a detailed placing of goods yard infrastructure and buildings for the same reason.  I could also shorten one or other of the left hand sidings to allow for a goods yard entrance too.

I like the way you’ve kept the loading dock siding short and not been tempted to try and fit in any sort of bay platform, which would be out of character for this layout.  The point could be where engines need to stop on my trains, with the attendant model railway risk of stalling, so for me the siding on the outer platform (at the rear of trains) works well, and is easy to shunt for tail end traffic.  I guess a real station might have to put it where there was also road access etc. whereas I can work the other way round.

[Flying Pig]

7 minutes ago, Keith Addenbrooke said:

I like the way you’ve kept the loading dock siding short and not been tempted to try and fit in any sort of bay platform, which would be out of character for this layout.  The point could be where engines need to stop on my trains, with the attendant model railway risk of stalling, so for me the siding on the outer platform (at the rear of trains) works well, and is easy to shunt for tail end traffic.  I guess a real station might have to put it where there was also road access etc. whereas I can work the other way round.

 

The bay platform is the comfy chair of model railways.

[Joseph_Pestell]

1 minute ago, Flying Pig said:

 

The bay platform is the comfy chair of model railways.

"I wasn't expecting the Spanish Inquisition".

[Keith Addenbrooke]

6 minutes ago, Joseph_Pestell said:

"I wasn't expecting the Spanish Inquisition".

Nobody was.

[woodenhead]

Cardinal Fang, bring me the bus for the bridge

[The Stationmaster]

15 hours ago, Keith Addenbrooke said:

Nobody was.

That makes a change!

[The Johnster]

I'm a little surprised that the classic 'Bredon' plan hasn't been mentioned.  It's designed for less space than this so could easily be extended, and ticks the 'Givens and Druthers' boxes.  It's hidden section could easily be converted to the 'top' station.  Isn't there somewhere on the Newquay branch with an island platform?  My personal preference would be to ditch the loco shed for another industry or loading facility; something that generates traffic and necessitates shunting rather than takes space, and on a branch line where the loco is out working most of the day, should be empty except for the once a fortnight loco coal wagon.  On a GW branchline, especially in Western England or West Wales, a dairy is the go to.

 

I think Druthers might be the plural form of an American corruption of 'I'd rather'!

 

20 hours ago, Keith Addenbrooke said:

Nobody was.

 

I was. They're always there, lurking in the shadows, waiting to pounce.  Ok, nurse, I'll take the nice medication now...

[The Johnster]

On 19/05/2020 at 06:30, Keith Addenbrooke said:

built by starting at the top with the roof, then working down through the different floors and hallways to get to ground level, before construction finished by digging the foundations.

I believe the pyramids were built in this way, and nobody can disprove it!  It's much easier to keep the shape accurate than if you start from the bottom...

[Keith Addenbrooke]

52 minutes ago, The Johnster said:

I'm a little surprised that the classic 'Bredon' plan hasn't been mentioned.  It's designed for less space than this so could easily be extended, and ticks the 'Givens and Druthers' boxes.  It's hidden section could easily be converted to the 'top' station.  Isn't there somewhere on the Newquay branch with an island platform?  My personal preference would be to ditch the loco shed for another industry or loading facility; something that generates traffic and necessitates shunting rather than takes space, and on a branch line where the loco is out working most of the day, should be empty except for the once a fortnight loco coal wagon.  On a GW branchline, especially in Western England or West Wales, a dairy is the go to.

 

I think Druthers might be the plural form of an American corruption of 'I'd rather'!

 

 

I was. They're always there, lurking in the shadows, waiting to pounce.  Ok, nurse, I'll take the nice medication now...

IIRC Bredon caused quite a lot of excitement when it first appeared in RM, as it showed what could be done, so it’s good to mention it here.  I did make a passing mention to Bredon in my post on “Druthers” but didn’t develop the point further - and it’s always good to have a smaller plan that can be extended, particularly where space is tight.  Good point about the engine shed, though I rather liked where Flying Pig placed it to break up the symmetry.  When I get to that point I’ll do some visual experimenting before deciding I think.
 

(I think your etymology for “Druthers” could well explain the term, thank you).

[Keith Addenbrooke]

On 23/05/2020 at 17:20, The Johnster said:

 On a GW branchline, especially in Western England or West Wales, a dairy is the go to.

Would it be a fair assumption that a dairy would generate a much greater frequency of traffic than most other forms of branch line industry?  My guess is that a small dairy would produce fewer wagon / tanker loads than a large one, but they would still need to be shipped out regularly (daily?) before the milk went off.  Given that branch line  model railways often have a traffic frequency very much in excess of prototypes, any industry with such a traffic pattern could be very attractive on a layout?
 

That said, six wheel fixed wheelbase wagons such as some milk tankers may not like my tight 3rd radius curves?

[The Johnster]

Pretty much; a dairy needs a daily clearance of the milk delivered to it from the farms and a daily supply of empty tanks or milk vans, whereas a sawmill, for example, might only need a weekly clearance, but could require empty wagons on a different day to the clearance, and might need an ad hoc coal wagon for the steam cranes.  Small termini tended to have small businesses, but of course if you are modelling a branch with a quarry or mine, that's a whole nother pressure cooker of wombats. 

 

RTR milk six-wheelers from Dapol or s/h Lima will be fine on 3rd radius; it is the overall wheelbase that affects running and they are effectively 4 wheelers with a bit of extra play on the centre axle.  They are certainly much less likely to be a problem than most tenders.  Milk is adaptable to differing conditions, so a small dairy might be serviced by a single tank, arriving empty as tail traffic on a passenger train and picked up full by a later one.  Larger dairies might be served as part of the Milk Train diagram that the single tank just referred to was detached from at the main line junction, and re-attached to on the return working to Acton or Kensington.  It might be worked as a freight train, or part of a freight train, with a freight brake van, or if it is the residual part of the main line train from Acton/Kensington, as a passenger stock working with a passenger brake van, especially in a pre war period when there was still some churn traffic carried in vans; this was the purpose of the original Siphons.  You might, in the 'residual' case, be able to justify a main line tender loco...

 

Tail traffic must be to the rear of passenger stock during the steam heating period, and no more than 8 axles of it behind the brake van.  Milk stank; it was fresh enough inside the glass lined tank but inevitable spillages went off quickly and unpleasantly.  Not all dairy sidings served dairies directly, either; at Marshfield between Cardiff and Newport the dairy was half a mile or so away from the old goods yard being used and road tankers would bring the milk to the siding for it to be pumped aboard.  Loading could be done by pumping into the outlet pipes or by gravity through the top hatch.  Unloading was done through the outlet pipes as you'd expect.  Interestingly, the tanks were allowed to run at 55mph loaded but only 45mph empty.

 

Milk is usually taken from the cows early in the day, then collected by road by the dairy.  So empty rail tanks are needed not much later than mid-morning, certainly before lunch, and the milk will be ready for dispatch by late afternoon; for a dairy in the far west of England or Wales you want your empty tank(s) arriving about 11.30 and the loaded dispatched by 16.00. ball park.  The milk train picks up traffic on it's way back upline, and delivers to the London milk depots at around midnight, the stuff is then bottled and the floats go out on delivery from about 02.30, coming back about 3 hours later for a second load.   You had to get it bottled within about 15 hours of loading the rail tank before it started turning in warm weather; once bottled it lasted a bit longer, especially if it could be kept cool.  This was why the deliveries took place in the early morning, the coolest time of day, and of course to provide customers with fresh for their corn flakes.

 

 

[The Stationmaster]

16 hours ago, Keith Addenbrooke said:

Would it be a fair assumption that a dairy would generate a much greater frequency of traffic than most other forms of branch line industry?  My guess is that a small dairy would produce fewer wagon / tanker loads than a large one, but they would still need to be shipped out regularly (daily?) before the milk went off.  Given that branch line  model railways often have a traffic frequency very much in excess of prototypes, any industry with such a traffic pattern could be very attractive on a layout?
 

That said, six wheel fixed wheelbase wagons such as some milk tankers may not like my tight 3rd radius curves?

Start here and follow the link near the bottom of the page.

https://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/132286-rail-served-dairies/&tab=comments#comment-3087244

 

Milk traffic came in two forms - in churns loaded to vans or in specialised tank cars loaded out of a dairy or even from road tankers at a siding (that wasn't all that common).  A lot depends on the period you model because you need an awful lot of relatively local milk production (i.e. plenty of farms and lots of milking cows) to justify a dairy.  Hence for the vast majority of intermediate and country stations despatch in churns was far more common and rail connected dairies tended to gradually grow in size over the years as they collected milk from ever larger areas by road.  So very period dependent.

[Keith Addenbrooke]

Repairing and preparing my baseboards over the Bank Holiday weekend has helped me appreciate the size of the project - for me this is a large undertaking.  The open plan and the continuous run give me exactly what I'm after in the layout, but when it comes to track laying, ballasting and scenery, the same open design means there'll be no place to hide: there aren't any 'out-of sight' corners to practise techniques and enjoy learning from my mistakes.

 

As an adjunct to the project layout, I've therefore also repaired and prepared a couple of 4' x 1' micro-layout boards I can put a small Branch Line Terminus on, to practise at each stage:

 

 

 

IIRC correctly, I think I first saw the station design on a plan of an early version of the feeder branch line terminus for Leighton Buzzard Linslade on Rev'd Peter Denny's Buckingham (before it was rebuilt - I think using buildings from MkII Buckingham and maybe even a compressed track plan of said version too?).

 

To be honest, it's not been a particular favourite among model Branch Line Terminus layout designs, but two things have changed my mind:

 

1.  I'll be using leftover Setrack pieces - there is no budget for this extra module - and the genius of the design is that the Station doesn't have any 'S' curves.  With 2nd radius Setrack points that'll be a really good idea, operationally and visually.

 

2.  Using a pair of the larger radius Setrack curves (designed to go with Y points) at the fiddle yard entrance really helps breaks up all the straight lines, and gives that extra bit of space.

 

This micro-layout is for two coach trains, and isn't intended to connect to the bigger layout, but I share it as the design has worked out better than I hoped for in what is really a test piece.  I don't need a test track for running-in purposes, as the full layout has the continuous run, so this is more than adequate.  The 8' total length means I can set it up in my same layout space.

 

(Trains not drawn to scale - design train length checked against the Setrack Geometry).

 

Keith.

Edited May 28, 2020 by Keith Addenbrooke
(1. condensed) (2. Revised measurements - loop clearances)

[Keith Addenbrooke]

Having got over the first hurdle of making a start, (particularly with my "practice piece"), I've been thinking about operating patterns, as the introduction of Top Station gives me some different options.  The basic operating pattern has two trains at Top Station, which take it in turns to visit Lower Station (which is not a passing place).  As I have spare Toad Brake Vans, I could run Mixed Trains as well as Passenger or Goods Trains, and the Loading Dock at the Top Station suggested by @The Stationmaster gives another operating possibility.

 

I am thinking of retaining a small Branch Engine Shed and a Carriage Siding at the Lower Station, so I could operate it like a Branch Terminus and run point-to-point Services for a change.  This would also require the loop at the Top Station to be set up for run-round moves, not just passing, but I'm assuming that might need to be the case if Clockwise Trains were allowed to shunt the Loading Dock anyway? (otherwise I can only run tail end traffic clockwise - although that can be done of course).

 

In order to increase operating possibilities at Lower Station, I'm looking at having the two Goods Sidings run in opposite directions from the Goods Loop, and I'm thinking in terms of 5 different types of Goods Traffic:

 

1.  XP rated Tail End Traffic is served by the Loading Dock at Top Station.  I'm thinking this will include milk brought in churns by road for onward carriage.  Milk is an important local product, but if I run this traffic from the Loading Dock I can have a different industry at Lower Station.  My time period is flexible - from about 1915 onwards, and I think some Creameries came later. Thank you for the information on milk traffic posted previously - really interesting.

 

2.  I now have four types of Goods Traffic to cover with the two sidings at Lower Station, but I don't know if my combinations are plausible:  my thinking is that coal logically fits near the Engine Shed (which has its own supply too), and at a small station might be on the same siding as a Goods Shed (which also has a small end-loading dock).  Livestock is kept away from this end of the Yard, but as I don't have any Platform-side provision at Lower Station, needs to be on a Goods Siding.  I also have a small industry at the end of that siding - probably a mill of some sort.  Would it be reasonable to have a siding shared between those two types of traffic?

 

 

I've put a Signal Box by the Level Crossing (I'm thinking of Blue Anchor, although I think the loop might go across the Level Crossing there?).  Is this a reasonable position for public safety, noting that Loading Dock shunting takes place at the other end of the loop?

 

I'm assuming that passengers use the level crossing to cross between the two platforms - this station isn't busy enough to warrant a footbridge (and, practically, the top platform is in low relief).  Do I need to move the Signal Box though - it is in their way?

 

Would I need a small Signal Cabin (platform-mounted?) at Lower Station if trains might terminate there?  As it's not a passing place I don't know if it would be the end of a block, or if the Goods Loop / Engine Shed would be covered by an Intermediate Block - I'm afraid I know far too little about this aspect of railway operation, sorry.  It could be that the option of having Lower Station operate as a small Terminus makes such things complicated, but from a model railway point of view it gives me more options.

 

I don't have a Mileage Siding - my original list of requirements was only for two Goods Sidings, and this has been met.  I'm not thinking in terms of Goods Wagons moving from one destination to another on the layout - it's too small for that.  in that sense, Top Station will also double as a scenic fiddle yard between operating sequences (when no-one is looking).

 

I've only shown the location of principal buildings - there will be numerous small huts and other buildings that could be added to give atmosphere in due course. 

Edited October 9, 2022 by Keith Addenbrooke
Reinstating photos