Layout Design Help

[Ellis NZ]

Hi All,

 

I have recently got to a point where I can get back into building a model rail layout and have my son join me for the journey and learn some new skills. We have already built the baseboard tables together and got to the point where they are all up, joint with dcc concepts aligners and have 15mm foam attached to the tops. Being based in New Zealand it isn't as easy to have a local club so some things are harder to learn from others. The forums on here seem really helpful though with plenty of useful knowledge to be shared.

 

So I have come for some advice for ourlayout. I have been playing around in AnyRail trying to make the best use of the space and some things I already have. So the current thoughts are:

1. Set in the modern day, say mid 2000's onwards (no exact date yet as I need to confirm my current stock and their time periods).
2. Loosely based in east midlands type area.
3. I would like to include some sort of TMD type space but also have a small station for up to 3 car DMU's so it's not all freight.
4. Some other form of industry if possible that would only require a few wagons at a time (currently seeing this go inside a space empty and return full or vice versa).
5. Made up from 4 x 4'by 2'baseboards. Set in an L shape due to the space in the garage. So 12' wide and 6' deep.

 

I have attached an image of something I have done up in AnyRail somewhat based on a recent model shown in Model Rail magazine with some minor changes. I liked what it offered. However I am keen to get it operationally correct to what is reasonable and also enjoyable. The layout is DCC and I will be using Code 75 rail. I also already own the TMD shed Hornby R9679 so trying to use that. 

 

Also happy to share the Anyrail file with anyone if they are happy to do some redrawing of anything. 

 

I hope that all makes sense. Happy to answer questions and appreciate any help in advance.

 

Thanks

 

Ellis

[RobinofLoxley]

This looks pretty good. Welcome to the forum BTW. We have quite a few active members in Australia, I only mention that for the 'similar' time zones.

 

A couple of things. You mention having passenger services based on a 3 car DMU yet the main platform is very much longer than required for that. There are some advantages in that, e.g. possible double use. For the red section, some of those sidings are really short, especially the link siding, you will only get a loco on that as it is. I think it might be possible to improve a bit for example by starting the outer phase with a curved point. The siding lengths are generally comparable to what is on the main scene but operationally I think it will be rather easy to 'block' traffic movements. Others may well comment on this as the layout wil attract plenty of attention.

[Dungrange]

What radii are you using for the 90 degree turns in the corner?  I can't tell if these are first or second radius, but most modern stock is designed for curves that are a minimum of second radius (438 mm).  If first radius, then you'll be limited to older models and those with a short wheelbase, which is not really in line with your chosen time period.

 

I agree with @RobinofLoxley that the sidings in the red section are rather short and the use of one or more curved turnouts would be a good idea to make at least some of them longer.  The white dots are where the joins are between the turnouts and the plain track, but you'll need the front of your train to be well clear of these points to allow access to the adjacent siding.  How far back depends on the radius of the curves and track centres, but I'd take the length of the flexi-track section in Anyrail and deduct about 75 mm (3") to determine the useable length.  Also, you need to give some thought to how you are going to avoid driving a train off the end of the baseboard.  If fitting buffer stops, then you will further reduce the usable length of these sidings (by about 50 mm (2")).  It may therefore be better to construct a physical barrier on the end of the fiddle yard board made from plywood, or similar material.

 

I can't really comment much on the specifics of the TMD layout as I'm not overly familiar with any prototype, but I'd ask why a small terminus station that only sees a DMU service would have extensive locomotive servicing facilities?  In the steam era, many small branch lines had an engine shed at the terminus, which was used to stable the locomotive(s) required for the first train(s) of the day, but they were typically fairly basic facilities.  Larger depots would have been at the mainline end of a branch.  As you step forward in time, these sort of facilities at a terminus are no longer required.  Passenger trains are generally no longer locomotive hauled, so the first train of the day is simply the DMU that was stabled at the platform overnight.  By the 21st century, any steam era engine shed would likely have been demolished, but wouldn't have been replaced by a newly constructed diesel depot.

 

Similarly, the majority of general purpose station goods yards had disappeared by the 21st century, so the freight potential at the end of a branch line would be much less than was the case in the steam era.  If you're looking for freight activity in the 21st century, then you're either looking at an industry that produces something (eg a cement works, steel works or china clay production - all of which would be quite extensive facilities) or you're looking at some sort of receiving terminal.  This could be a couple of sidings and a warehouse style building that would be used to unload and/or store the materials being delivered. 

 

Unfortunately, these are typically privately owned facilities (some of which have been built on the site of former railway goods depots) and typically don't have any TMD attached to them.  As an example, the top photograph at https://waverleyrouteha.wordpress.com/2010/10/18/a-visit-to-the-brunthill-branch-by-andy-laing/ is a photograph of the facilities at Brunthill in Carlisle, which was built on the track bed of the former line between Carlisle and Edinburgh.  This facility is still there, but as far as I can tell, is no longer in use.  However, in the early part of the 21st century (which is the period that I am interested in), I understand that this facility was handling at least three trains a week, which conveyed steel and cement for transfer to road for onward distribution.  I think the buildings can accommodate six or seven wagons. In earlier photographs, only the building on the right exists, with the tracks to the left originally being outside.  However, the facilities were enlarged to what is shown in that photograph in the early 21st century.  This is part of the inspiration for the freight action on my own layout (under construction).  The other freight facility on my layout will be an oil receiving terminal similar to the facilities at Dalston in Cumbria.  Since the facilities at Dalston are quite small, the block trains that operate from Grangemouth are split at Carlisle Kingmoor and then tripped to Dalston in three shorter rakes (with each rake being six tank wagons).

 

Ultimately, it's difficult to fit modern facilities into a small space, so compromises need to be made and you are probably best placed to decide what you really want.  Copying another model is great if your primary goal is to play trains with your son.  However, many models created this way are not prototypically correct, so if you are trying to create a truly believable scenario for a model of the real railway, then it's probably best to draw inspiration from the real railway.

 

Good luck with this project and welcome to the forum.

[Kris]

I've looked at you plan a couple of times but haven't commented previously because I would rather suggest a solution than just say what I feel is wrong. 

 

So what is wrong??? I feel this has the appearance of a steam age branch terminus rather than something from the last 20 years. 

 

And a solution. One solution that could work would be for the station and the TMD to be on different levels with no interconnecting line. If I were to do this, I would have the station as a single platform with no bay or associated sidings. 

 

For the exit of the line from the MPD I would be tempted to take this under the branch to the station suggesting that this line heads somewhere different.  

[Flying Pig]

11 hours ago, Ellis NZ said:

I would like to include some sort of TMD type space

 

 

Why? It's not wrong to base a layout around a depot of some sort, but a lot of modern traction modellers seem to gravitate automatically towards the trope without thinking it through.

[Dungrange]

7 minutes ago, Flying Pig said:

Why? It's not wrong to base a layout around a depot of some sort, but a lot of modern traction modellers seem to gravitate automatically towards the trope without thinking it through.

 

In @Ellis NZ's case, it may be because he already has a Hornby TMD shed, but I think most of us like locomotives, buy too many and then want an excuse to show as many of them off as possible.  The cliché of a TMD then becomes the rational for justifying having a lot of locomotives and indeed buying more.  As you say, there is nothing wrong with building a layout based around a TMD if the stabling, maintenance and fuelling of locomotives is what interests someone.

 

1 hour ago, Kris said:

I feel this has the appearance of a steam age branch terminus rather than something from the last 20 years. 

 

I agree.  If there was a run round loop at the main passenger platform, then it does indeed have a steam era feel to it.  However, whilst it appears that there may have been some rationalisation in relation to the passenger operations, the rest of the track does look a little stuck in the 1960s.

 

1 hour ago, Kris said:

One solution that could work would be for the station and the TMD to be on different levels with no interconnecting line. If I were to do this, I would have the station as a single platform with no bay or associated sidings. 

 

For the exit of the line from the MPD I would be tempted to take this under the branch to the station suggesting that this line heads somewhere different.  

 

That's a good enough idea and there are a number of layouts based around similar concepts. 

 

I think what I consider to be 'wrong' with the layout as is, is that there isn't really enough space to include a passenger station, locomotive stabling and servicing facilities and freight facilities all in the one location and make it look believable.  It was possible for all of these to appear in the same location in the steam era, but that's not what the 21st century railway looks like.  Locomotives and freight stock are larger than in the past and it's simply not economic to operate freight trains that convey just one or two wagons (apart from nuclear flasks).  If that is all the traffic that is on offer, then it would have switched to road haulage years ago.

 

In my own case, I started with a list of things that I'd like to fit in, station, freight facilities etc and quickly realised that I couldn't fit everything in, so in my case the station went and all I'll have on scene is two freight facilities (warehousing adjacent to the up line and oil discharge sidings on the down side).  These will both be accessed from a loop off the down line.  It was simply a case of deciding what was most important to me.

 

Going with a split level layout would allow two different elements to be incorporated in a believable setting.  A passenger service on the higher level as you suggest and either a TMD or some form of freight facility on the lower level.  Personally, I'd go for some form of freight facility on the lower level, but that is because I find shunting wagons more appealing than pretending to refuel locomotives.  Ultimately we don't know what aspects of railway operation interest @Ellis NZ most.

 

There is of course nothing wrong with building a layout that is not prototypically authentic if it provides fun to its creator.  I'm sure my childhood self would have enjoyed operating the layout as is, simply because in those days, I was perfectly happy to imagine that a two wagon train was actually much longer.  If playing trains is the priority, then that is perfectly acceptable.

 

12 hours ago, Ellis NZ said:

Some other form of industry if possible that would only require a few wagons at a time (currently seeing this go inside a space empty and return full or vice versa).

 

Whilst it is possible to load or unload wagons within a building or other space, you'll need to think carefully about access if you plan on having removable loads.  One of the reasons that I adopted the industries that I have for my own layout is that the wagons look the same whether they are loaded or empty.  That therefore meant I deliberately selected vans, and tank wagons and avoided things like automotive wagons and coal wagons, where it is far more obvious whether the train is loaded or empty.

[RobinofLoxley]

Something I didnt add was that modern freight tends to be in longer units, which means that siding length calculations are more important. Ellis do you have any idea what kind of freight you might be moving, and in what stock.

[Guest]

16 hours ago, Ellis NZ said:

So I have come for some advice for ourlayout. I have been playing around in AnyRail trying to make the best use of the space and some things I already have. So the current thoughts are:

1. Set in the modern day, say mid 2000's onwards (no exact date yet as I need to confirm my current stock and their time periods).
2. Loosely based in east midlands type area.
3. I would like to include some sort of TMD type space but also have a small station for up to 3 car DMU's so it's not all freight.
4. Some other form of industry if possible that would only require a few wagons at a time (currently seeing this go inside a space empty and return full or vice versa).
5. Made up from 4 x 4'by 2'baseboards. Set in an L shape due to the space in the garage. So 12' wide and 6' deep.

Sounds fine to me. 

 is what I wrote earlier today. The specifics might not apply, but I hope you get something from the general sentiment.

 

However, I want to push back on some of the critique a couple of things a couple of the other posters have said. They're not wrong in some ways, but I think they're missing the point of model railways. First and foremost model railways are meant to be a fun, relaxing, hobby you hopefully get to share with other people. Some people just like the 'atmosphere' of a layout rather than its preciseness to the real thing because the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. Oh and yes, you are allowed to use inspiration off other layouts because that inspiration and story might fill a knowledge gap in your own story or layout - the details might not directly apply, but you can use the idea... I dare say without my Dad or my Uncle Tony I wouldn't be interested in trains or model railways.

 

To say that your layout is 'a bit steam era' or 'not modern enough' seems snide. I guess those modellers are still using the '4ft 8.5in' used in the Victorian era. How many of us really 'break the mold' and do something original especially if we're being held to prototypical standards? I didn't realise somebody died and made them king. I know people who just collect model railway locos and don't even have an MPD layout. It's because the model conveys a sort of meaning to them. Some people get  kick out of improving a model and that's how they find meaning.

 

However, they're not the chief engineer or the entrepreneur or the government involved with your fictional(?) location. You are allowed to be creative in the story your railway tells and not every layout has to be a verbatim copy of the real thing. You can use the "if a tree falls in forrest and nobody is around..." thought experiment to justify something 'odd' especially if you're making a fictional location. Perhaps this (branch) line got truncated at your station and goes double track just after your scenic break. Perhaps the reason your line was kept open is because the yard (sorry to change the 'purpose') is because its right beside a tank manufacturer and there are occasional trains taking MoD supplies, or a nuclear flask loading place, or it's a Permanent Way sidings. Maybe just have a 'general freight area' that changes purpose depending on your mood. I don't know and you'll think of your own 'reason', but I wanted to share ideas in a hopefully more positive manner. Keep it the same for all I mind - its not my money and nor my time.

 

Just as a 'side note'. Someone was apparently asked in my University photo society "How come you like photographing trees?" The reply was "I like trees". I joined the University paper because I got sick of the photo society talking about camera sensors.

[Ellis NZ]

Ok, lots of feedback. Firstly I want to say thanks to everyone who responded. Exactly the kind of thing I was hoping for from a forum. It was definitely a worthwhile endeavour to post here.

 

I appreciate that in some ways it wouldn't make sense to have it as I designed and value that feedback. By asking about being realistic I did specifically open up to those responses. Of course like many models there will ultimately be some level of fantasty due to space restrictions. 

 

I think from the variety of feedback it is clear that I was hoping for too many things so have reconsidered the industry requirement as possibly to hard basket for this size and doing modern image. I also liked the idea of moving the station to a higher level as this creates some more scenic interest than a flat board look. 

 

With that I present V2 of the idea that has moved some of the depot around, made the station on a higher level and will feature a bridge crossing over the depot entrance/exit. I have included a possible second shed and think I would like to include a roadway on the fiddle yard board to both block out the fiddle yard and add more scenery and an entrance for vehicles into the TMD.

 

I like having a two platform option on the passenger line for interest and to allow the idea that there are different destinations beyond the board where perhaps the line is larger and may have originally passed through here or some such idea. 

 

In regards to why a TMD I agree it is a bit cliche these days for modern image particularly but I do already have the building and a range of diesel locomotives that I could then display as stated. Plus it gives some opportunity for movement around rather than a plain line. I also really like the look of a well done TMD in terms of scenery and lighting etc that can bring it to life.

 

Anyway hope that helps and once again thanks so much to everyone responding and being so helpful. This is what I need after all a springboard for ideas.

 

Thanks

 

Ellis

[ITG]

I’m in the ‘it’s your layout’ camp, but personally I would add a run round loop somewhere in there, as to me it adds operational interest, even if only used for short goods trains (assuming DMU/EMUs for passengers).

[Harlequin]

Hi Ellis,

 

The two level idea definitely adds some visual interest to the design but you might need to think about the operating interest as well, especially on the upper level. It depends if you and your son are interested in operations, of course. On the other hand, if electronics and automation is of interest then the upper level would be great place for a semi-automated shuttle service running back and forth all on it's own while human operations concentrate on the lower area.

 

If the short arm is a fiddle yard, not just a storage yard then you need to be able to get your hands on the rolling stock and in that case hiding it behind factory buildings and running the high level tracks above the lower might not be a good idea.

 

Edited May 24, 2021 by Harlequin

[Chimer]

A possible scenario justifying a sizeable MPD at a branch terminus could be that the depot was built to serve a major terminus a couple of miles away.  Originally there was an in-house shuttle service for the workforce to the terminus, but housing built up around the depot so the original minimal workers' platform was turned into a proper suburban terminus .......

 

And, a very big stretch of imagination required here, the depot later reduced in size and some spare land and tracks were taken over by a rail-served industry .......

 

Any good?

[DCB]

Personally I would stick with one level.   The V1 cold do with easing the curve and maybe slewing the tracks so the station is not parallel with the basebard edge.    This scenario could work if the station was a new build post 1970.   It happened at Fort William and elewhere  (Morecombe?)  where the line was shortened, to old station sold off for development and a brand new station built on what had been goods sidings.  1970s concrete.  Most UK 21st century stations were built well over 100 years ago.   The platform would have two tracks of equal length, probably concrete sections.   TMD is pushing it a bit but as stated elsewhere it could serve a nearby large station or goods depot.  I wont mention Hockey stick traversers as you're a newbie and it might put you off model railways for life

[TonyMay]

There are few, if any, actual surviving branch line termini in the East Midlands.

 

Matlock maybe, but actually it's a through station because it connects to Peak Rail.  Buxton is really North-West rather than East Midlands.  In reality, the East Midlands isn't greatly served by rail, and the few secondary lines in the region start/finish at mid-sized town or city junction stations that have at least one main route running through.

 

One possibility instead of a BLT is to model "platforms 9 & 10" of a much larger station.   Platforms 9&10 being what the local 3 car DMUs use.  The rest of the station is off-stage and can be represented by a grand station building, or overall roof.  There would be then an excuse for having railway-related maintenance buildings on the site.

[TonyMay]

I forgot Skegness, but I think forgetting Skegness is probably a good thing.

[RobinofLoxley]

Mr Nicolson, welcome to RM Web.

 

I cant speak for others, but my comments in threads of this kind are generally aimed at improving the operability of whatever it is that is being proposed. Others with more knowledge of railway operations may add that a particular arrangement of track isnt  likely to have been seen in a particular scenario that has been mentioned by a poster asking for support. No one is telling anybody what to do, its all about options. The OP will make his or her own choice in the end. Layout planning is a very important thing as deciding to dismantle something half built that really doesnt work is soul destroying after hours of work. So any contribution that prevents that happening is worthwhile.

 

 

Edited May 24, 2021 by RobinofLoxley

[RobinofLoxley]

Hi Ellis,

 

Its alway possible to build a second level on at a later date as long as you plan where its going to go.  I'm with Phil maybe a railcar shuttle.

 

More difficult, as gradients are always tricky, is two levels on the main boards, with the fiddle yard at an intermediate level that means some operations climb up to the yard others descend. The gain is that only half the climb is needed for each part. But construction is much more complex, all depends where your skills lie.

[Kris]

5 hours ago, TonyMay said:

One possibility instead of a BLT is to model "platforms 9 & 10" of a much larger station.   Platforms 9&10 being what the local 3 car DMUs use.  The rest of the station is off-stage and can be represented by a grand station building, or overall roof.  

This could have some real legs as an alternative option. It gives a plausible reason for the TMD. 

[Aire Head]

20 hours ago, JonnyNicholson said:

Some people just like the 'atmosphere' of a layout rather than its preciseness to the real thing

Some people like the model the railway as it is or was to great detail. The OP asked about prototype operation and received helpful replies accordingly. I’m also pretty sure that as a grown man he is aware that he can do what he wants but I’m sure he appreciated you reminding him.

 

20 hours ago, JonnyNicholson said:

I didn't realise somebody died and made them king.

A old saying about pots and kettles comes to mind.

[Dungrange]

23 hours ago, JonnyNicholson said:

First and foremost model railways are meant to be a fun, relaxing, hobby you hopefully get to share with other people.

 

I couldn't agree more.  A layout should fulfil the aspirations of its creator. 

 

Of course what an individual wants can vary enormously.  At one end of the spectrum is the individual who simply wants to build their dream 'train set'.  As a young child they were inspired by a photograph in the Hornby catalogue from 19xx and promised their young self that one day, that's what they would have.  Fifty years later, they have the time, money and space to construct that dream, and they try to cram four circuits with two stations, freight facilities, and engine shed with turntable and a tunnel into their attic or garage.  The layout may not be prototypical and the signals may be no more than decorative.  It may not represent anywhere in particular and the stock that runs on it may be from a mix of eras bought simply because it's pleasing on the eye, but if that's their dream, then that's what they should build.

 

At the other end of the spectrum is an individual who strives to create a near perfect scale model of a particular location at a particular point in time.  They spend hours collating old photographs, Ordinance Survey maps, Working Time Tables and Sectional Appendices and trying to understand the typical merchandise handled at or passing through their station in their chosen year, examining train formations and seeking to replicate everything as accurately as possible, even if that means scratch building stock and infrastructure from scale drawings.

 

The rest of us fit somewhere between these two extremes but some individuals can relate to one end of the spectrum better than the other.

 

23 hours ago, JonnyNicholson said:

To say that your layout is 'a bit steam era' or 'not modern enough' seems snide.

 

Certainly not.  When someone says that they want to create a model that represents the East Midlands in the 21st century, what do they mean?  Do they just mean that they want to run modern stock that has been seen in that part of the country, or do they actually want to create a layout that is a plausible representation of the area and time period.  It's not clear from the opening post precisely what the aim is and the degree of authenticity that is sought or desired.  A model doesn't need to represent an actual location, but I believe it should try to capture the main characteristics of both the location and time period if that's what its creator seeks.

 

I also think that a track plan should be designed with reference to the stock that you plan to use.  To give you an example, my club exhibit a layout called Glendevon, which is supposed to represent a former North British Railway branch line terminus as it may have looked in the 1950s.  It's a typical steam era layout representing a station that probably would have been recommended for closure by Dr Beeching.   At exhibitions, I enjoy shunting the goods yard and marshalling the next goods train that will depart for the fiddle yard.  A departing train will typically have about eight or ten wagons with a brake van on the rear, as that is all that will fit in the fiddle yard at the other end of the layout.   I'm happy enough doing a double shift if required.  However, if I try operating the layout in the clubroom with some of my own stock, it's not nearly so enjoyable.  Why?  The answer is that the layout was designed for steam era stock.  The head-shunt in the yard can accommodate an 0-6-0 tank locomotive and six or seven steam era wagons at a time, but when I swap that for a class 66 and some Cargowaggons, I can only fit the locomotive and a single wagon and a Cargowaggon is too long to fit in the goods shed: it fouls the adjacent platform.  My longest wagons are Revolution trains' IZA Cargowaggons, which at about 360 mm in length equate to at least four wagons from earlier times.  That makes a huge difference to how a layout is operated and therefore a layout that may work with stock from an earlier era is not necessarily suitable for more modern wagons.

 

23 hours ago, JonnyNicholson said:

I guess those modellers are still using the '4ft 8.5in' used in the Victorian era.

 

I'm actually using an incorrect track gauge of 4ft 1.5in that was introduced in the 1920s!!!    Of course the correct prototypical track gauge of 4ft 8.5in predates the Victorian Era: Railway Mania was in full swing before Queen Victoria came to the throne.  However, you make a good point, even in the 21st century, the majority of the buildings around us were constructed in the 19th and 20th centuries.  Old infrastructure can remain in use for as long as it is fit for purpose.

 

20 hours ago, Ellis NZ said:

I also really like the look of a well done TMD in terms of scenery and lighting etc that can bring it to life.

 

That seems like a good enough reason to have a TMD centre stage on your planned layout.

 

20 hours ago, Ellis NZ said:

With that I present V2 of the idea that has moved some of the depot around, made the station on a higher level and will feature a bridge crossing over the depot entrance/exit. I have included a possible second shed and think I would like to include a roadway on the fiddle yard board to both block out the fiddle yard and add more scenery and an entrance for vehicles into the TMD.

 

I prefer your V2 layout, as I can envisage that there is a large station close by and this is the site of the mainline depot that was built by company A.  At a later date company B built a line that cut between company A's depot and the mainline and this high level line was subsequently truncated at your station.  Being close to a mainline would present the rational for the old steam era infrastructure having been replaced with something more modern and suited to the needs of the modern railway.  However, if you want to revert to an all on the level approach, @TonyMay's suggestion of representing just part of a larger station also presents a plausible explanation for your TMD.

 

It has already been highlighted by @Harlequin that access to the sidings in the lower part of your fiddle yard could be problematic if you build over the top with the upper level fiddle yard and block the front with a factory.  However, as these lower sidings seem to be primarily for locomotive storage, you may not require access all that often, although you will need to be able to see what is parked where so that you know what DCC address to select (unless you're aiming to use Railcom). 

 

Two other points that are worth highlighting.  I can't read the dimension showing the length of your longest siding in the upper fiddle yard (but I think it says 930 mm).  I'm not sure what DMUs you plan on using, but a three-car class 170 unit is about 920 mm long, so it will be a tight fit.  Your other two sidings will only hold a two car DMU.  My other comment is that the route from the lower fiddle yard to your fuelling point is now rather convoluted, which involves three changes of direction.  If going from your largest maintenance shed to the fuelling point, there would be four changes of direction.  On a model it's not a big issue to flick a direction switch, but on the real railway it would be more of a hassle for the driver, so I'd look at amending that part of the plan so that access for fuelling is a bit more direct.  Apart from that, I don't think there is anything else I can say apart from good luck and I hope it makes you and your son happy.

[RJS1977]

10 hours ago, TonyMay said:

There are few, if any, actual surviving branch line termini in the East Midlands.

 

Matlock maybe, but actually it's a through station because it connects to Peak Rail.  Buxton is really North-West rather than East Midlands. 

 

It was, however, for many years an example of a branch terminus with a loco depot attached to serve the nearby quarries. 

 

Perhaps the OP could consider the option of the line across the Peak still existing to enable East Midlands trains to access Buxton, or possibly a fictional town somewhere between Bakewell and Miller's Dale, with a south-facing terminus as an extension of the Matlock service, and with stone quarries nearby.

 

So I'd go with the original plan, but move the industrial line closer to the 'main' line - thus making the common siding(s) longer. (Better still, consider a traverser of some sort or a cassette yard rather than a fan of sidings).

 

At the station, I'd include a run-round loop, so a loaded stone train can arrive from the quarry, run round and go back down the branch (or vice versa with empties). Alternatively, the quarry could have its own loco which would bring stone traffic down the quarry branch to an exchange siding, where a loco from the depot would take over.   

[Ellis NZ]

Thanks once again for the continued input.

 

I have looked at various options with levels and not and tried many versions. However one thing I realised as I am sure many have at this stage is it's very easy to get more and more complicated. Suddenly there were far more points etc and extra layers, all with a cost might I add and getting things to NZ can be expensive. 

 

So with that in mind I have decided for now that in mind I really like the idea presented below by @TonyMay and this allows a reason to service locos at the redveloped/reused site of previous sheds from the steam era. 

14 hours ago, TonyMay said:

One possibility instead of a BLT is to model "platforms 9 & 10" of a much larger station.   Platforms 9&10 being what the local 3 car DMUs use.  The rest of the station is off-stage and can be represented by a grand station building, or overall roof.  There would be then an excuse for having railway-related maintenance buildings on the site.

 

In addition I totall agree with the point @Dungrange made about getting to the fuelling point so I have revised the trackwork of the TMD to be less complex as well. Finally I have looked at his other thought and amended the fiddle yard to include at least 2 locations a 3 car dmu could fit one of which is extra long should I want some small loco hauled special. This may also allow in the future to continue the layout around on the left hand side but let's not go there now.

 

So with those things in mind I show again a plan revision to take a look at and hopefully this makes more sense. At least it does to me

 

Thanks again everyone for your input, this forum is incredibly helpful and I will have many more questions to come.

 

E

 

 

[Kris]

The small modifications that you have made to your latest plan compared to the original make for a much improved plan. The back story for the platforms also adds significantly. 

[Zomboid]

If you put a sufficiently big overall roof on the back platform, the HST Power Car and single mk3 shuttle in and out of it could be used, if you want to represent that kind of thing.

[RobinofLoxley]

I like it Ellis, shoud provide plenty of operating interest. To give some interest to the scenery etc, the 'fiddle yard' sidings could be on gradients so the tracks at the back finish up a bit higher than the set of 3 at the bottom.