GW Adventure - a track planning tale

[The Stationmaster]

All good stuff.  incidentally 'XP' vehicle branding didn't begin to exist until the latter part of the 1930s and for what traffics you have in mind your short dock would in any  case be used by NPCCS vehicles (Non Passenger Carrying Coaching Stock).  Milk traffic will more or less inevitably be in churns I think for virtually all the period you have in mind.

 

The position of the level crossing and signal box needs a bit more thought especially if you regard the level crossing as the access between the two platforms (which I wouldn't - i'd simply have a boarded foot crossing permitted to be used by passengers at that end of the platform but with passenger access to both platforms from the road that crosses the level crossing - i.e. a path behind the signal box).

 

Normally your tail traffic to/from the short siding would be dealt with by trains on that side - makes things a lot simpler   

 

At the other location/station I think you have a choice of how you play your signalling.  A small signal box would probably be the best idea as it allows a bit more operational flexibility in whichever mode you operate the station/yard and would definitely fit your 1915 date and could well survive through to 1939 so it isn't unbelievable.  Definitely on/at the end of the station platform (it would only need an absolute maximum of 12 levers).   I think your facilities aren't bad although the engine shed remains a bit of a double edged sword by consuming siding space although I can see why you need it so don't argue with having it.  But it does leave limited space for traffic although teh goods shed would probably see no more than 2-3 wagons a day and about the same for mileage traffic including coal.  I do wonder about the cattle dock as a potential waste of siding space - I reckon you need to think more carefully about that rather than any other facility you are going for at this station.

 

All in all you've got a lot of operating fun enjoyment into a pretty small space by creating what now amounts to three layouts in one (three because you can work the bottom station in two different way).  Now for a real loony idea - will that carriage siding have sufficient straight track to allow it to be used in some manner as a cassette exchange. (which would obviously have to include a 'scenic cassette' to be returned once stock exchange cassettes have been used - or do you just lift stock off and on?).

[Keith Addenbrooke]

39 minutes ago, The Stationmaster said:

All good stuff.  incidentally 'XP' vehicle branding didn't begin to exist until the latter part of the 1930s and for what traffics you have in mind your short dock would in any  case be used by NPCCS vehicles (Non Passenger Carrying Coaching Stock).  Milk traffic will more or less inevitably be in churns I think for virtually all the period you have in mind.

 

The position of the level crossing and signal box needs a bit more thought especially if you regard the level crossing as the access between the two platforms (which I wouldn't - i'd simply have a boarded foot crossing permitted to be used by passengers at that end of the platform but with passenger access to both platforms from the road that crosses the level crossing - i.e. a path behind the signal box).

 

Normally your tail traffic to/from the short siding would be dealt with by trains on that side - makes things a lot simpler   

 

At the other location/station I think you have a choice of how you play your signalling.  A small signal box would probably be the best idea as it allows a bit more operational flexibility in whichever mode you operate the station/yard and would definitely fit your 1915 date and could well survive through to 1939 so it isn't unbelievable.  Definitely on/at the end of the station platform (it would only need an absolute maximum of 12 levers).   I think your facilities aren't bad although the engine shed remains a bit of a double edged sword by consuming siding space although I can see why you need it so don't argue with having it.  But it does leave limited space for traffic although teh goods shed would probably see no more than 2-3 wagons a day and about the same for mileage traffic including coal.  I do wonder about the cattle dock as a potential waste of siding space - I reckon you need to think more carefully about that rather than any other facility you are going for at this station.

 

All in all you've got a lot of operating fun enjoyment into a pretty small space by creating what now amounts to three layouts in one (three because you can work the bottom station in two different way).  Now for a real loony idea - will that carriage siding have sufficient straight track to allow it to be used in some manner as a cassette exchange. (which would obviously have to include a 'scenic cassette' to be returned once stock exchange cassettes have been used - or do you just lift stock off and on?).

Thank you - I wish my modelling skills could match the quality of the advice (but I have something to aim for!).

 

I’ve been able to get into my stock box this morning and check: a Siphon G I have doesn’t have an ‘XP’, which fits (it may be more of a mainline item than one I’d see on this line, but it’s something I can start with as I have one).

 

I was wondering about shunting the loading dock - would passengers have to de-train during setting back / picking up moves?  
 

My idea for ‘return trips’ (in my case, anti-clockwise) wanting to access the dock is that trains with stock to return go past Top Station, then shunt returning NPCCS into the carriage siding at Lower Station, to be picked up by the next clockwise working for the short trip home?  It adds to the operating sequence if that’s the right thing to do.  If the returning NPCCS stock is allowed at the head end of the anti-clockwise train, shunting at Lower Station is presumably easier and passengers can remain seated?

 

Top station is kept as a passing station with a single trailing point siding, ‘run-rounds’ take place at Lower Station.

 

With regards to swapping over stock, I hope to set up a sequence to run for half an hour, then turn off the lights and re-set the layout.  I think a gentle curve will work better inside the running line than a straight - I’d not thought of a cassette option.

 

Thankyou for the pointers about platform access at Top Station and about the Livestock facility - I’ll have a further think and look at some photos - I’d assumed a livestock handling facility was a staple, to be honest.

[Harlequin]

15 hours ago, Keith Addenbrooke said:

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. 

 

This plan is really wonderful. It's deceptively simple, provides interesting operations and uses the standard 8by4 footprint to create a real model, rather than the typical train set.

 

Have you plotted it using track templates to see how it would actually fit together?

 

I wonder if the loop at the bottom station, and the platform, could be made longer?

 

[The Johnster]

The bottom loop can be extended if you needed to with curved turnouts, but these may be a problem if you are using insulfrogs.  The level crossing could be moved between the signal box and the platform ramps, or passengers could use the timber barrow crossing if supervised by railway staff.  The signal box needs to be close to the l/c.  A 'Y' turnout at the 2' grid line on the upper station's milk siding could lead to a curved siding that follows the running line for a couple of feet; this can be used as a refuge, or for shunting out the milk siding between empties and loadeds, or a a mileage road, or as a combination of all 3.  

 

As for signalling the lower station, it could be a block post with a platform signal box or alternatively the loop can be accessed by a centrally located ground frame next to the loop at the 4' grid line.  This will be released with a key attached to the block token on request by telephone to the signal box (which on this layout represents the boxes at each end of the block section).  No signals are required; the guard directs movements by hand signals, and you need 4 levers, a blue locking lever to unlock the facing point lock the turnout at the left end of the loop and a black point lever to simultaneously operate this turnout and the trap point that needs to be installed (to protect the running line) on the loop at approx. 3" to the left of the 3' grid line, and exactly the same arrangement as a mirror image for the right hand end of the station.  

 

You also need a trap point at the exit of the upper station milk siding and potential mileage.  Peco do code 100 trap/catch points.  Another option would be to move the mill siding at the lower station to the right a bit, so that the turnout accessing it is at approx. 3 or 4 inches to the right of the 4' grid line.  The cattle dock can share the carriage siding, and the mill siding can now be run into the mill, actually inside it or to a loading bay.

 

This is getting about as good as an 8x4 plan can be.  I'd recommend an extension from turnouts at the 2' grid on the end curves to serve a fiddle yard or yards if you ever have room for it. which will extend the already considerable operating potential further.  Fiddle yard(s) would eliminate the need for a loco shed and that space could be used for something else that generates traffic; like Stationmaster Mike I see why you need a loco shed but it's dead space from an operating pov, with 4 movements tops in a working day. 

 

 

Edited June 20, 2020 by The Johnster

[The Stationmaster]

4 hours ago, Keith Addenbrooke said:

Thank you - I wish my modelling skills could match the quality of the advice (but I have something to aim for!).

 

I’ve been able to get into my stock box this morning and check: a Siphon G I have doesn’t have an ‘XP’, which fits (it may be more of a mainline item than one I’d see on this line, but it’s something I can start with as I have one).

 

I was wondering about shunting the loading dock - would passengers have to de-train during setting back / picking up moves?  
 

My idea for ‘return trips’ (in my case, anti-clockwise) wanting to access the dock is that trains with stock to return go past Top Station, then shunt returning NPCCS into the carriage siding at Lower Station, to be picked up by the next clockwise working for the short trip home?  It adds to the operating sequence if that’s the right thing to do.  If the returning NPCCS stock is allowed at the head end of the anti-clockwise train, shunting at Lower Station is presumably easier and passengers can remain seated?

 

Top station is kept as a passing station with a single trailing point siding, ‘run-rounds’ take place at Lower Station.

 

With regards to swapping over stock, I hope to set up a sequence to run for half an hour, then turn off the lights and re-set the layout.  I think a gentle curve will work better inside the running line than a straight - I’d not thought of a cassette option.

 

Thankyou for the pointers about platform access at Top Station and about the Livestock facility - I’ll have a further think and look at some photos - I’d assumed a livestock handling facility was a staple, to be honest.

The Siphon G  was a bogie vehicle so it wouldn't be branded XP in any case - because it had bogies.  XP was a branding on 4 wheeled vehicles which met certain conditions in respect of things like wheelbase and brakes.  Tail traffic could be marshalled at either end of a passenger train although in the steam heat season the vehicle would have to be one with a through steam pipe.

 

The question about detraining passengers is an interesting one and there are two answers.  As it was a siding trains conveying passengers would not normally be allowed but of course not much of the passenger stock would enter the siding in any event.  In practice if circumstances demanded why on earth disturb the passengers especially if it's raining (the gentlemanly remote station approach) or why go to the bother of getting them out and back in on a very full train.  as an example of teh latter very many years ago I was a passenger on a 3 car DMU from Kingswear which had to attach a loaded Conflat from the dock siding at Churston.  It was a bank holiday Monday and the DMU was rammed full to the gunnels so no passengers were detrained before it shunted into the siding to collect the Conflat - to get us all off and back on would have taken nearer 20 minutes than 10!

 

The only thing with your operating plan about swopping the vehicle at the lower station would be if the platform line is long enough - but unless the coaches remain in the platform the passengers would in that case definitely have to detrain.

 

The lower station would be more awkward to operate, in real world terms, if you used ground frames instead of a signal box because it would have to have a ground frame at each end as there q was a Requirement for a ground frame to be immediately adjacent to the points it controlled, especially on passenger lines.

 

Generally the GWR only used a single tongue (i.e. just one blade) trap point at loading docks and it is perfectly feasible to procduce a dummy representation using a bit of filed down rail next to am ordinary piece of track, have a look here -

https://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/122322-gwr-type-b-single-tongue-catch-point/

 

Livestock facilities were not a universal thing, for example both of the intermediate stations on our local branch didn't have cattle docks although both the junction and the terminus did.  It all depended on the amount of business that was likely to be there to justify the facility.

[Keith Addenbrooke]

6 hours ago, Harlequin said:

 

This plan is really wonderful. It's deceptively simple, provides interesting operations and uses the standard 8by4 footprint to create a real model, rather than the typical train set.

 

Have you plotted it using track templates to see how it would actually fit together?

 

I wonder if the loop at the bottom station, and the platform, could be made longer?

 

Thank you for this: kind words and good points - I’ve benefited from some very helpful advice along the way, thank you to all.

 

With regards to checking it all fits, it’s a really good point: clearances are tight.  I have the track I need for the basic plan, and have laid it out to check (starting at the level crossing, there’s a Setrack route via the Goods loop at Lower Station nearly all the way back to the Loading Dock siding, which helped).  It should be OK, but I do need to lay out the baseboards to double check - it’s a fair question as to why I didn’t check this first of course (A: these boards were stuck in the garage after a house move, and needed repairing, but are now accessible.  I’ve only myself to blame if there’s a problem now).

 

The lower loop should be OK to run round a 30” (3 coach) branch train.  My simple representation of a platform probably makes it look shorter - my intention is to lengthen the platform.  The loop is currently drawn with a left hand medium point and a right hand long point, which is a luxury, so it could be lengthened using short points, which would give another 4” or so.  I don’t know if there’s enough width for @The Johnster ‘s suggestion of curved points as I also want to have a platform at Top Station.

Thanks, Keith.

 

 

 

 

Edited June 20, 2020 by Keith Addenbrooke
(Grammar)

[Keith Addenbrooke]

3 hours ago, The Johnster said:

The bottom loop can be extended if you needed to with curved turnouts, but these may be a problem if you are using insulfrogs.  The level crossing could be moved between the signal box and the platform ramps, or passengers could use the timber barrow crossing if supervised by railway staff.  The signal box needs to be close to the l/c.  A 'Y' turnout at the 2' grid line on the upper station's milk siding could lead to a curved siding that follows the running line for a couple of feet; this can be used as a refuge, or for shunting out the milk siding between empties and loadeds, or a a mileage road, or as a combination of all 3.  

 

As for signalling the lower station, it could be a block post with a platform signal box or alternatively the loop can be accessed by a centrally located ground frame next to the loop at the 4' grid line.  This will be released with a key attached to the block token on request by telephone to the signal box (which on this layout represents the boxes at each end of the block section).  No signals are required; the guard directs movements by hand signals, and you need 4 levers, a blue locking lever to unlock the facing point lock the turnout at the left end of the loop and a black point lever to simultaneously operate this turnout and the trap point that needs to be installed (to protect the running line) on the loop at approx. 3" to the left of the 3' grid line, and exactly the same arrangement as a mirror image for the right hand end of the station.  

 

You also need a trap point at the exit of the upper station milk siding and potential mileage.  Peco do code 100 trap/catch points.  Another option would be to move the mill siding at the lower station to the right a bit, so that the turnout accessing it is at approx. 3 or 4 inches to the right of the 4' grid line.  The cattle dock can share the carriage siding, and the mill siding can now be run into the mill, actually inside it or to a loading bay.

 

This is getting about as good as an 8x4 plan can be.  I'd recommend an extension from turnouts at the 2' grid on the end curves to serve a fiddle yard or yards if you ever have room for it. which will extend the already considerable operating potential further.  Fiddle yard(s) would eliminate the need for a loco shed and that space could be used for something else that generates traffic; like Stationmaster Mike I see why you need a loco shed but it's dead space from an operating pov, with 4 movements tops in a working day. 

 

 

Thank you - some helpful suggestions, particularly as to how the basic plan might be developed further without losing the character (even if not at first, maybe one day).  You’ve answered one question I’ve not got round to asking: I was assuming the Goods Loop would need trap points - the ‘legs’ of the loop mean the points aren’t paired like crossovers.  I’m inclined to add a platform-based Signal Box at Lower Station if there’s room, partly as I already happen to have one I built from a kit a while back.  Thanks, Keith.

[The Johnster]

4 hours ago, The Stationmaster said:

if you used ground frames instead of a signal box because it would have to have a ground frame at each end as there q was a Requirement for a ground frame to be immediately adjacent to the points it controlled, especially on passenger lines.

I was basing my proposed central gf on Grangetown, where the turnout accessing the Ferry Road Branch was halfway along the down platform face, with the gf about 150 or more feet away on the other side of the Penarth Road bridge by the trailing xover.  One of my fellow guards made himself famous by throwing the xover points under a train of empty oil tanks that the 08 E76 pilot was drawing off the branch just before the morning rush hour; not the sharpest knife in the tray...

 

Of course, the longer rod runs mean the pull is harder but within the capacity of a normal healthy bloke at a small station like this one.  

[The Johnster]

If you have a signal box ready for the lower station then it makes sense that the loop is signalled for passing traffic, bi-directionally so that a passenger can pass a freight in either direction (or overtake one). Traps are now needed at the exits from the goods/loco shed siding and the mill/carriage siding to protect the loop, which is now a running line.

[The Stationmaster]

The situation with the 'loop' at the lower station appears to be that it  if you lengthen the loop to make it usable as a crossing loop you will inevitably have to shorten the sidings and I think that won't suit the sort of operating you have in mind.   As it stands you could - if you have signal box  there - shunt a short freight part way into a siding to get it clear of the through line and that might be a sensible (and not at all unrealistic) compromise.   I really think that if you shorten those sidings you are going to destroy the ;'different style of layout' character of that station and yard.

[Harlequin]

Hi Keith,

 

The oval is very close to the ends and so it may be difficult to disguise the exits through the central spine backscene. (Do you still have that in the plan???) With that in mind, how about pulling the oval in, say 50mm at each side so that there's room for some scenery outside the track as it passes through the backscene.

 

That would mean the top station is a bit shorter, but that's OK because it appears to be plenty long enough and there seems to be scope to make the lower station a bit longer by doing the kind of things The Johnster suggested.

 

Then, perhaps, there might be enough room to move one of the lower features that are currently inside the circuit to the outside in one of the corners, much like the loading dock is, in fact. I'm thinking about moving the engine shed, really, which would then have a trailing connection into the passing loop.

 

Then, how would it be if you abandoned the facing sidings (on the lower right) and took the goods yard off the passing loop much further to the right? The goods yard would be longer and would have a trailing connection. Shunting would have to use the main line but that should be OK - it's what happened in the prototype.

 

Then your goods shed would be on the left somewhere and you could move your industry (Mill) building over to the right. It wouldn't be rail-served any more but that would be fine - not everything has to be (or should be!) railway related. It would be part of the scenery, helping to disguise the track exit from the lower right quadrant, maybe with a dusty road and hedgerows leading to it.

 

From the fevered imagination of...

[Keith Addenbrooke]

22 minutes ago, The Stationmaster said:

The situation with the 'loop' at the lower station appears to be that it  if you lengthen the loop to make it usable as a crossing loop you will inevitably have to shorten the sidings and I think that won't suit the sort of operating you have in mind.   As it stands you could - if you have signal box  there - shunt a short freight part way into a siding to get it clear of the through line and that might be a sensible (and not at all unrealistic) compromise.   I really think that if you shorten those sidings you are going to destroy the ;'different style of layout' character of that station and yard.

 

Thank you - it's helpful to see that even this simple scheme has possible options within the space constraint.  Some people might find having just one passing loop at Top Station constraining and welcome a second one, as @The Johnster suggests, while others might favour the restriction of just having one and keeping the Lower Station for shunting only.

 

Personally, I'm inclined to stick to the idea of having one passing place, as you suggest - it works well for the kind of operations and trains I have in mind. 

 

If I was running first generation DMU's over a branch line soon to close (for example), I guess the option to have more passing places at the expense of shorter sidings and fewer goods movements might be attractive, but I'd need to study that era to comment properly?

[Keith Addenbrooke]

4 minutes ago, Harlequin said:

Hi Keith,

 

The oval is very close to the ends and so it may be difficult to disguise the exits through the central spine backscene. (Do you still have that in the plan???) With that in mind, how about pulling the oval in, say 50mm at each side so that there's room for some scenery outside the track as it passes through the backscene.

 

That would mean the top station is a bit shorter, but that's OK because it appears to be plenty long enough and there seems to be scope to make the lower station a bit longer by doing the kind of things The Johnster suggested.

 

Then, perhaps, there might be enough room to move one of the lower features that are currently inside the circuit to the outside in one of the corners, much like the loading dock is, in fact. I'm thinking about moving the engine shed, really, which would then have a trailing connection into the passing loop.

 

Then, how would it be if you abandoned the facing sidings (on the lower right) and took the goods yard off the passing loop much further to the right? The goods yard would be longer and would have a trailing connection. Shunting would have to use the main line but that should be OK - it's what happened in the prototype.

 

Then your goods shed would be on the left somewhere and you could move your industry (Mill) building over to the right. It wouldn't be rail-served any more but that would be fine - not everything has to be (or should be!) railway related. It would be part of the scenery, helping to disguise the track exit from the lower right quadrant, maybe with a dusty road and hedgerows leading to it.

 

From the fevered imagination of...

 

Thank you - some more good ideas. 

 

I'd hesitated to mention the facing points that would re-appear if the Lower Station became a passing station, as that's where this whole adventure began, of course. 

 

Per my reply to @The Stationmaster (that's just crossed with your post), I think this proposal here combined with @The Johnster's could look really good if the period modelled was being brought forwards - a non-rail served industry would then be a key part of the narrative of declining rail use  (an abandoned kickback siding could be included, without the hassle of shunting it?) as well as being a useful scene blocker. 

 

The engine shed could go altogether, or be used to feed a Fiddle Yard extension which The Johnster also suggested (I don't have room at present, but it's still a good idea).  Lower Station is then a small Junction, but with just one platform, requires bi-directional working for passenger trains...

 

The same basic layout could start to look and feel very different.

 

As you suggested yesterday, I think the key next stage is to plot the track positions precisely to see if there's a problem.  That will help me visualise a backscene in place too.

 

Thanks, Keith.

[Keith Addenbrooke]

I've had a quick sketch at incorporating some of the alternative suggestions made by @The Johnster and @Harlequin (as I have interpreted them).  The track is drawn with Anyrail.

 

One possible outcome would be as follows:

 

(Sorry, photo no longer available)

 

The loop at Lower Station is now very nearly 40" long (effective train length would be a bit less) so it could become a passing station.  The loop at Top Station is also a bit shorter, to draw in the side curves (so they're not quite so close to the baseboard edges at their maximum 90 degree width - see the right hand or East end).  The two loops are now essentially the same length.

 

To fit a curved Streamline point at Lower Station, the whole layout shifts slightly North, so the Stations are both now single platform stations (as it stands).  This would be the biggest loss, although you could perhaps (just about) curve in the inside line at Top Station to make an island platform?

 

I've used a 3rd radius Setrack curve on the outer leg of the Lower Station Loop to ensure the curve will fit, but can use a more gentle ST238 curve (designed for use with Y - points) on the inner leg.  I also used two short Streamline points at the right hand end of the loop - although they are tighter than the points I've used previously, they still have a more generous curve than the 3rd Radius Setrack I'm using for the end curves.  It means there's room for a Peco 4" Trap point.  If the loop becomes a second running line, that trap point isn't needed (and medium points can be used instead).

 

As I have suggested above, I think this version of the Scheme looks more suitable for a Transition era layout, shortly before the branch closed.  Although the changes aren't major and haven't taken long to process, to me the visual difference is now quite noticeable (more than I expected):

 

 

For my particular purposes, this is still the version that works, but it isn't the only possibility.

Edited October 9, 2022 by Keith Addenbrooke
Reinstating photos

[Keith Addenbrooke]

For reference, this is a quick sketch in Anyrail to show the basic geometry for a symmetrical  oval on an 8' x 4' board using Peco Streamline points and 3rd Radius Setrack end curves. 

 

Three points to note:

 

1.  A solid 8' x 4' board has a number of drawbacks, which were discussed in the earlier part of this thread.  I have an unusual space where I can set up a workable portable layout on four 4' x 2' boards, so it is a constraint I am working within.

 

2.  This diagram is not suggested as the start point for a layout design - it is a reference drawing I've put together this morning just to show the limits of what may be feasible.

 

3.  I have not double checked these dimensions using track templates on baseboards, which would be recommended in all cases where clearances can be tight.

 

 

 

Keith.

 

 

Edited October 9, 2022 by Keith Addenbrooke
Reinstating photos

[The Stationmaster]

17 hours ago, Keith Addenbrooke said:

 

Thank you - it's helpful to see that even this simple scheme has possible options within the space constraint.  Some people might find having just one passing loop at Top Station constraining and welcome a second one, as @The Johnster suggests, while others might favour the restriction of just having one and keeping the Lower Station for shunting only.

 

Personally, I'm inclined to stick to the idea of having one passing place, as you suggest - it works well for the kind of operations and trains I have in mind. 

 

If I was running first generation DMU's over a branch line soon to close (for example), I guess the option to have more passing places at the expense of shorter sidings and fewer goods movements might be attractive, but I'd need to study that era to comment properly?

If you are going to move the layout into the DMU era and keep it as Western everything becomes very simple - the freight traffic would largely, if not completely, have vanished by the mid 1960s and unless you have some sort of specific industry all you would see that late is occasional coal traffic.  From about 1961 onwards the Western was very heavily into rationalising track layouts taking out as much as possible as quickly as possible with suitable facilitries for steam traction (e.g water cranes) being removed as fast as possible.

 

My local branchline - which admittedly had one or two unusual traffic features - tells a fairly typical story.  One intermediate signalbox was removed in the 1950s and a siding connection it worked was altered to ground frame operation.   In 1961 the branch was singled and a crossing loop was provided at the other intermediate station where a new signal box also appeared, within a year or two a new coal merchant began to use the only siding for occasional traffic, by then the Camping Coach had gone.  At the terminus some of the unusually extensive carriage sidings - used for seasonal stock storage started to go from 19561 onwards, within a couple of years there were only three carriage sidings left,   The turntable had gone by 1961/62 but hadn't been used for years.  The branch trains were changed to 100% diesel working by 1960, the two through trains to/from London remained steam worked until 1963 then went over to diesel loco haulage until finally replaced by DMUs c.1967/8.  all freight traffic was withdrawn in 1965 following which most sidings were removed although two carriage sidings and the run round loop remained until DMUs took over the through London trains.  By 1970 everything had gone except for two platform lines - no sidings, no runround loop, it had all gone.  And the only reason things lasted that long was because loco haulage carried until 1967/68.

 

Numerous WR branches were similarly treated in the 1960s and those that had kept anything then were further rationalised - down to a single line and nothing else - in the early 1970s.  So for early 1960s you would only be likely to need a very simple track layout.

[Keith Addenbrooke]

As recommended earlier, checking the track actually fits on the boards is a key step in ensuring this compact design will work.  Although it turns out the individual boards are each 4' 1/4" long, there is very little room either side of the end curves despite the extra 1/2“ I have.  I think this rules out a full width central scenic divide, but as Top Station is quite thin, the visual impact of the gap between the stations made it look OK to me (shown here in green):

 

(Sorry, photo no longer available)

 

Placement of buildings continues to evolve - one thing I've read suggests I may not need coal staithes, depending on custom and practice in the location I settle on?  I'm still thinking about whether to have livestock pens at Lower Station - and I may lengthen that siding a bit again.

 

Although Top Station is very narrow, tapering the loading dock siding with a gentle curve looked good to me, so I'm thinking I'll keep that.  There is room for a Siphon G before the baseboard edge is reached.

 

The loop at Lower Station is long enough to run round a three-coach train and the platform can be lengthened, but the problem is at Top Station, where the use of Curved Points at both ends of the loop means the tracks don't diverge as quickly as with other points - there is only just room for an Up Train to pass a full-length 40" train in the Down Platform. 
 

Conversely, the Up loop line is plenty long enough to hold an Up train, as the gentle curve of the Streamline Curved points mean there is minimal front overhang from buffer beams of locomotives entering the Down platform to interfere with waiting trains in the Up loop.  

 

{4th July - see clarification on clearances posted below)

 

I've shown the full width of the Track in this drawing as it shows this problem with Top Station loop clearly.

 

I'm reluctant to change the design - in every other respect I was really pleased with how it looked and checked out, but it's only fair to acknowledge that the passing loop as I've drawn it may not be suitable for copying.

Edited October 9, 2022 by Keith Addenbrooke
Edited for text only as photo no longer available

[Keith Addenbrooke]

(Sorry, photo no longer available)

 

 

A quick rework of the plan at the left hand end of the loop to shift the curved point 2" along the end curve also adds another 2" to the length of the Down Line (anti-clockwise) at Top Station.  The loading dock siding point is now on the curve, giving a bit more room for the aesthetic curve on the siding. 

 

Space for this comes from shifting the whole layout slightly down to the 2" line at Lower Station.  Station buildings will be small and could be in low relief, maximising space.

 

This will need double checking again of course next time the boards come out.  I've also added 1/2" to the spacing between the Top Station loop lines, which was at 1 3/4" centre-to-centre (7' scale) and is now 2 1/4" (9' scale).  Both adjustments should give just that extra bit of room when trains pass.

 

[I think an even wider spacing in stations might have been correct to allow inspections (or was this just at termini?).  One advantage of modelling GW lines is the backstory can always include Broad Gauge if the gap gets too wide].

 

The slight curve along Top Station comes because the total turn on the end Curves including the Curved Points is not quite 180 degrees, giving the extra space needed.

Edited October 9, 2022 by Keith Addenbrooke
Edited for text only as photo no longer available

[Harlequin]

Hi Keith, If you used a 3-way point to take the coach and livestock sidings off the loop both could be longer.

 

[Keith Addenbrooke]

On 29/06/2020 at 09:21, Harlequin said:

Hi Keith, If you used a 3-way point to take the coach and livestock sidings off the loop both could be longer.

 

 

Like this:

 

(Sorry, photo no longer available)

 

 

Note: The Peco Code 100 Range 3-way used here is symmetrical, whereas the Code 75 Finescale Range 3-way point is asymmetrical.   The Code 100 point is a straight swap for a medium radius point and immediately gives the much longer sidings suggested.  It's on a Goods Loop, not a running line.

 

(PS: I don’t personally have a 3-Way point to use and they can cost more than two regular points, but it’s a good option: it’d be easy to print off the Peco template to see how it looks and if it’s worth saving up for).

Edited October 9, 2022 by Keith Addenbrooke
Edited for text only as photo no longer available

[Harlequin]

Hi Keith,

 

I'd like to give you an alternative take on the same basic plan. Some or all of it may be useful to you or other readers. (It does bend one of your Givens very slightly and gives one of your Druthers a really hard time...)

 

Is it OK to post it here?

 

P.S. Streamline curved turnouts diverge exactly the same as most other Streamline turnouts so they won't be affecting the length of your top passing loop differently than any other turnout. But there are ways to work with/around it.

Edited July 4, 2020 by Harlequin
P.S.

[Keith Addenbrooke]

2 hours ago, Harlequin said:

Hi Keith,

 

I'd like to give you an alternative take on the same basic plan. Some or all of it may be useful to you or other readers. (It does bend one of your Givens very slightly and gives one of your Druthers a really hard time...)

 

Is it OK to post it here?

 

P.S. Streamline curved turnouts diverge exactly the same as most other Streamline turnouts so they won't be affecting the length of your top passing loop differently than any other turnout. But there are ways to work with/around it.

 

By all means, please do - the Forum is for exchange of ideas, and I may well learn something too of course.  Thanks, Keith.

[Keith Addenbrooke]

On 28/06/2020 at 19:47, Keith Addenbrooke said:

the problem is at Top Station, where the use of Curved Points at both ends of the loop means the tracks don't diverge as quickly as with other points - there is only just room for an Up Train to pass a full-length 40" train in the Down Platform. 
 

Conversely, the Up loop line is plenty long enough to hold an Up train, as the gentle curve of the Streamline Curved points mean there is minimal front overhang from buffer beams of locomotives entering the Down platform to interfere with waiting trains in the Up loop.  

 

On 04/07/2020 at 11:30, Harlequin said:

Streamline curved turnouts diverge exactly the same as most other Streamline turnouts so they won't be affecting the length of your top passing loop differently than any other turnout. But there are ways to work with/around it.

 

Harlequin has correctly pointed out I'd mistakenly attributed the problem with the Down Platform Loop at Top Station (anticlockwise) to the divergence of the Curved Streamline points used, and I also confusingly gave the same reason - the Curved Point - as to why the Up Platform Loop line (clockwise) works better.

 

I'd been mixing up some different things, which the following diagram should hopefully clarify:

 

(Sorry, photo no longer available)

 

Putting Scenario 1 next to Scenario 2 correctly explains my problem with the lower Down Line: it is actually  the length of the Curved Streamline Point that means the end of the point at D1 is more than an inch to the left of the equivalent position D2 if a Medium Point was used.  Both points diverge at 12 degrees and therefore need the same curved section to achieve parallel lines as drawn here.

 

Comparing Scenario 1 with Scenario 3 illustrates my second point, about "sideswipe."  I'm also building a layout using Setrack points at the moment.  Setrack curves are sharper.  If I place the footplate of a locomotive with a protruding buffer beam (say a 4-4-0) at E1, a position 4" from the end of the curved point (which is marked by D1), I think the protrusion is less than if I place the same locomotive at the equivalent spot E3 on a Setrack point.  E3 is also 4" from the tangent line through D1.  The buffer beam of the locomotive is further along the straight part of the lower line in Scenario 3 before sideswipe is eliminated because the Setrack point has a sharper radius than the Streamline points.

 

Does this matter?  Where clearances are tight, every inch can make a difference - and with a passing loop, the effect is sometimes doubled when both ends use the same assumptions.  I needed a longer passing loop than I'd thought.

Edited October 9, 2022 by Keith Addenbrooke
Edited for text only as photo no longer available

[The Stationmaster]

It all comes back to the length of train you want to run.  But what is a good idea appearance wise is to have trains looking 'lost' in the length of the loop - in other words the loop should be significantly longer than the longest length of train you have in mind.  It's all about kidding the human eye and if trains are 'tight' in passing loops your 'eye' will not be satisfied because things will look overcrowded.  So ideally in terms of appearance your loops should be as long as pointwork combinations will allow.

[Keith Addenbrooke]

1 hour ago, The Stationmaster said:

It all comes back to the length of train you want to run.  But what is a good idea appearance wise is to have trains looking 'lost' in the length of the loop - in other words the loop should be significantly longer than the longest length of train you have in mind.  It's all about kidding the human eye and if trains are 'tight' in passing loops your 'eye' will not be satisfied because things will look overcrowded.  So ideally in terms of appearance your loops should be as long as pointwork combinations will allow.

Good point, thank you for highlighting this.  I think the same can apply to platforms.  A normal daily branch train on a line like this might be an 0-4-2T and Autocoach, or a Pannier Tank (or Small Prairie) and two coaches.  
 

In my case I specify a 40” design train length so 3 coach trains can also be run on occasion: specials for Market Day, or so tail traffic or through coaches can be added.  When running an excursion train (another example of a Special), tight clearances may change the illusion to one where the tight fit adds to the sense of occasion that this is not normal.