Langwathby or perhaps Embsay New track plan advice

[Joseph_Pestell]

7 minutes ago, Aire Head said:

Ok so I had a play around and I must I am insanely jealous of the space you have!

 

So below is the plan i Can up with an a provisional Idea.

 

The main area i focused on is the station and goods yard area. While doing some further research in the area I saw Bolton Abbey station in which the quarry was a similar location as in my proposal. I would be concerned about access to this area in the case of a derailment.

 

That looks pretty good. But it needs an extra crossover by the signal box for quarry/mine trains to get into the exchange sidings. I also think that the platforms are way too long for a minor Midland station. Better to have shorter platforms and have more space for the exchange sidings.

[Harlequin]

@Graham70 Re-reading the OP I get the feeling that you might not have allowed for a fiddle yard at all because you mention the caravan being off-centre to make space for the station with double track going around the other 3 sides of the shed. Is that right?

 

And related to that, can I ask why the caravan needs to be able to exit from both ends? If one end were blocked then that might provide space for a fiddle yard and it would simplify things greatly not to have to engineer two ~3m long lift-out sections.

 

Do you intend to operate the layout while the caravan is in the shed? If so is there room to move around to deal with derailments, pickup problems, etc.?

 

[Aire Head]

19 minutes ago, Joseph_Pestell said:

 

That looks pretty good. But it needs an extra crossover by the signal box for quarry/mine trains to get into the exchange sidings. I also think that the platforms are way too long for a minor Midland station. Better to have shorter platforms and have more space for the exchange sidings.

 

The Platforms are around 7 foot long so they could be shortened and in hindsight I would add another trailing crossover onto the down line (the uppermost line in this case.)

[Graham70]

On 22/05/2020 at 04:17, Aire Head said:

Ok so I had a play around and I must I am insanely jealous of the space you have!

 

So below is the plan i Can up with an a provisional Idea.

 

The main area i focused on is the station and goods yard area. While doing some further research in the area I saw Bolton Abbey station in which the quarry was a similar location as in my proposal. I would be concerned about access to this area in the case of a derailment.

Thanks this is looking good.

Question if you had empty coal wagons coming from skipton how do they cross over the over line? would they go past then reverse back across and into the yards?

Would it be better to have the station building on the other platform so as to view the building from the platform side? I know it is in real life on the closer platform.  

Could I rotate 180 and have skipton on the left and Ilkey on the right? that way would have the station facing out?

Have been thinking more about the colliery and what if i were to have the colliery line disappear and then use a helix to drop down on to a lower bench? thinking a lower bench would be easier to work on than a upper one. i have plenty of space to fit a helix in which would give me a larger area to model a colliery and associated workshops ect.

Thanks.

 

 

[Graham70]

On 22/05/2020 at 04:55, Harlequin said:

@Graham70 Re-reading the OP I get the feeling that you might not have allowed for a fiddle yard at all because you mention the caravan being off-centre to make space for the station with double track going around the other 3 sides of the shed. Is that right?

 

And related to that, can I ask why the caravan needs to be able to exit from both ends? If one end were blocked then that might provide space for a fiddle yard and it would simplify things greatly not to have to engineer two ~3m long lift-out sections.

 

Do you intend to operate the layout while the caravan is in the shed? If so is there room to move around to deal with derailments, pickup problems, etc.?

 

There is going to be a roller door at both ends so i can push the van out onto the back lawn so i can then use the shed space for any projects or car maintenance ect.

There will be just enough room with the van in place to get around the sides to attend to any problems.

Am thinking of using a helix to drop down to a lower deck where to model a colliery and would then also have space for fiddle yard and return loop. 

[Graham70]

Thanks for all your input guys and please keep it coming. Its the designing a track plan and the operating rules/restrictions that i am not very familiar with. The construction and electronics i am fine with.

This layout will be using block occupancy detection and at this stage will be digitrax  loconet network running under Traincontroller. 

I had hoped DCC Concepts would had have their detection/identification system up and running but last i asked it was a very vague  "not at this time".

 

 

[Harlequin]

55 minutes ago, Graham70 said:

There is going to be a roller door at both ends so i can push the van out onto the back lawn so i can then use the shed space for any projects or car maintenance ect.

There will be just enough room with the van in place to get around the sides to attend to any problems.

Am thinking of using a helix to drop down to a lower deck where to model a colliery and would then also have space for fiddle yard and return loop. 

Hmmm... This is all sounding rather impractical, I’m afraid.

[Aire Head]

6 hours ago, Graham70 said:

Question if you had empty coal wagons coming from skipton how do they cross over the over line? would they go past then reverse back across and into the yards?

Would it be better to have the station building on the other platform so as to view the building from the platform side? I know it is in real life on the closer platform.  

 

Goods train accessing the yards would need to perform a reversing manoeuvre. This is a standard feature of steam era railways.

 

As detailed before there was an aversion to facing points to prevent trains accidentally being sent into the goods yard.

 

The theory goes that if a trailing point is set incorrectly that the weight of the train would be able to move the point underneath the locomotive and avoid derailment.

 

The station building is positioned where it is due to the quarry line. Stations were designed so that the main access would be through the station building in order to ensure that all your passengers buy tickets! So while you could model the station building on the other side the quarry line would prevent people from easily using it.

[Graham70]

32 minutes ago, Aire Head said:

 

Goods train accessing the yards would need to perform a reversing manoeuvre. This is a standard feature of steam era railways.

 

As detailed before there was an aversion to facing points to prevent trains accidentally being sent into the goods yard.

 

The theory goes that if a trailing point is set incorrectly that the weight of the train would be able to move the point underneath the locomotive and avoid derailment.

 

The station building is positioned where it is due to the quarry line. Stations were designed so that the main access would be through the station building in order to ensure that all your passengers buy tickets! So while you could model the station building on the other side the quarry line would prevent people from easily using it.

Thank you for that, i thought that was the way they did it. 

I am thinking if i rotate your design 180 i can have the colliery line run along losing height and then disappear through a tunnel and then onto a helix and down to a lower deck.    

I might shorten the platforms so it suits a max of a 5 carriage train so i can model more scenery leading into the station area from Skipton?

When i get some time i will do up a track plan and then you guys can let me know how I go with points and crossover placements. Where was the addition of the extra trailing crossover needed?

[Titanius Anglesmith]

52 minutes ago, Aire Head said:

As detailed before there was an aversion to facing points to prevent trains accidentally being sent into the goods yard.

 

The theory goes that if a trailing point is set incorrectly that the weight of the train would be able to move the point underneath the locomotive and avoid derailment.

 

I’m happy to be corrected, but I don’t think that was the reason. In most cases it simply isn’t practical to run a goods or ECS train head-first into a yard because it traps the loco at the stops. It’s far easier to reverse the train in, then the loco doesn’t get trapped and no running round is required.

 

Then of course there’s the FPL issue. Any facing point on the passenger line needs an FPL, which in turn means more cost. In most cases the cost isn’t justified just to allow a goods train into a yard when a trailing point will do. 

 

As as always there are exceptions, eg Southend Goods mentioned earlier. On the same line there was also Dagenham Dock, Purfleet and Grays, all of which had facing points into the sidings. This was because of the large amount of traffic going to and from the industries connected to the sidings. The facing access meant that the main line wasn’t blocked by constant reversing moves. At all three stations the sidings were arranged as Arrival and Departure, and the loco was able to run round in the sidings (before someone questions it, these were not marshalling yards). 

[Aire Head]

1 hour ago, Titanius Anglesmith said:

 

 

I am happy to be corrected here too!

 

Edit: for some reason my phone went haywire while posting this hence the empty quote box

Edited May 25, 2020 by Aire Head

[Aire Head]

2 hours ago, Graham70 said:

Thank you for that, i thought that was the way they did it. 

I am thinking if i rotate your design 180 i can have the colliery line run along losing height and then disappear through a tunnel and then onto a helix and down to a lower deck.    

I might shorten the platforms so it suits a max of a 5 carriage train so i can model more scenery leading into the station area from Skipton?

When i get some time i will do up a track plan and then you guys can let me know how I go with points and crossover placements. Where was the addition of the extra trailing crossover needed?

 

Platforms can be easily shortened. The additional trailing cross over is required at the end of exchange sidings and should feed onto the line to Skipton.

[Wheatley]

My two penn'orth - apart from Appleby and Settle most of the S&C platforms would only take 4 coaches or so, they were extended in the early 1990s to 108m to take 4 car 156s. Anything too long for the platform would simply draw up. 

 

Titanius has it, facing points were avoided because they added cost, both in installing them and maintaining them afterwards. Setting back into goods yards and lie-by sidings added time but it was only when traffic intensity increased that loops (and their attendant facing points and costs) were added at Blea Moor and Long Meg. 

[Compound2632]

7 hours ago, Wheatley said:

Titanius has it, facing points were avoided because they added cost, both in installing them and maintaining them afterwards. 

 

It seems to me that it was primarily a safety issue as far as the Board of Trade was concerned, and they set the requirements - paragraph 6 here. New works were subject to inspection and would not be passed for passenger traffic if they did not meet the requirements.

[Harlequin]

@Graham70

Some practical questions:

1. Is the shed warm enough to use in winter and draught free? (And not too hot in summer?)
2. When the caravan is in place how much space is there between it and the layout?
3. If the fiddle yard is on a lower level, how and where does it connect to the double-track circuit of the shed? (Is that connection going to take up space in the scenic area?)
4. If the colliery scene is on a lower level, does that have a separate connection to the top level taking up space and requiring a particular alignment of the colliery line?
5. What radius and pitch of helix are you thinking of?
6. Have you considered the traction problems of RTR steam locos hauling long trains up the helix?
7. How are you going to fit a return loop in the lower level, just in terms of the width needed?

 

[Graham70]

16 minutes ago, Harlequin said:

@Graham70

Some practical questions:

1. Is the shed warm enough to use in winter and draught free? (And not too hot in summer?)
2. When the caravan is in place how much space is there between it and the layout?
3. If the fiddle yard is on a lower level, how and where does it connect to the double-track circuit of the shed? (Is that connection going to take up space in the scenic area?)
4. If the colliery scene is on a lower level, does that have a separate connection to the top level taking up space and requiring a particular alignment of the colliery line?
5. What radius and pitch of helix are you thinking of?
6. Have you considered the traction problems of RTR steam locos hauling long trains up the helix?
7. How are you going to fit a return loop in the lower level, just in terms of the width needed?

 

So minimum day time temps in winter are on average 20c  summer tops of about 45c so the shed will be well insulated and have AC.

 

With the van in place will have around 1500mm between the van and layout.

 

One way i can connect the lower fiddle yard to the upper main lines would be through the colliery {which is on the same level as fiddle yard} then up the helix, or up the helix and branch off and rejoin on the other side near to the Skipton exit. I am sure there is a few ways to do this.

The colliery line would disappear from the main level  through a tunnel then onto the helix and down.

 

During  planning ill work out what the gradients are and if its looks like its close to a problem i can always use Powerbase, am sure i can keep the gradient no more than 2% or less with good planning.

Ill be able to have the helix radius out to as close to the 500mm mark as i can.

 

To get a return loop on the lower level ill have the available width of 1000mm so i think a radius of around 480 should be fine.  One idea would be to have a double parallelogram then a return loop then back into another double parallelogram with the return loop starting and finishing at the widest points of the yards to make best use of the width.  I have 7m of length to play with.

 

Lots to work out but i think its all possible without to much drama.