Layout Design Help

[AndrueC]

I'm also in the 'build what you want' camp. Hardly surprising given that Circularium is two loops without a single station

 

However when it comes to adding scenery having a prototype to copy from would make things easier. Without a prototype it's all down to imagination. I have two staging yards and while I know roughly what a staging yard looks like and can look at photos it's quite difficult to transfer that onto my own board. I think that really good scenery not only needs to be well built but also needs to make sense with its surroundings. Any 'human controlled' area will become organised according to human needs and if you don't have personal experience or a real-life area to copy from you might not achieve full realism.

[Guest]

On 24/05/2021 at 11:32, Chimer said:

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?

Probably not real, but not unreasonable... Perhaps its that an urban area MPD didn't have room to expand and a new depot or facilities were needed (even if the general trend was towards closure). However, new activities did happen due to closures - like Buxton MPD closing and the fuelling point at Peak Forest 'opening'.

[Aire Head]

On 23/05/2021 at 03:25, Ellis NZ said:

However I am keen to get it operationally correct

 

 

1 hour ago, JonnyNicholson said:

Well, show me that from the original post.

See above.

 

1 hour ago, JonnyNicholson said:

I was also rejecting the idea that *model* railways *have* to be novel, original or prototypical because you're as good as saying the hobby is only open to certain people.

This hasn’t been said by anyone else in the thread nor by me. What I am detecting from yourself is the really tiring “anti river counter” rhetoric I see all the time from

people who seem more determined to dictate how people should be having fun than the so called “rivet counters” they have self declared a personal crusade against.
 

The advice provided was done so in a friendly and helpful manner and was in fact something the OP had already thanked people for and didn’t require you to wade in as a knight in shining armour to rescue his poor damsel in distress self from the machinations of the evil river counters.

 

1 hour ago, JonnyNicholson said:

Anyway, I don't really want to turn Ellis' request for advice/help/etc in to an argument about 'how prototypical does a model railway really need to be?'

There isn’t any argument here about “how prototypical does a model railway need to be. Why I take issue with is how you have decided that OP is being bullied by a bunch of “evil rivet counters” and decided to spout off.

 

2 hours ago, JonnyNicholson said:

l'm not going to tell him what to do

No one is telling him what to do and given this is an Internet forum it’s hardly likely someone is going to hold a gun to his head and force him either.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Aire Head said:

See above.

The original post copied and pasted:

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:

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).

Loosely based in east midlands type area.

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.

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).

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

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Aire Head said:

This hasn’t been said by anyone else in the thread nor by me.

From 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."

 

Precisely, what is wrong? Then how is 'it' wrong? Maybe Kris can answer those questions...

[Guest]

You know, I'm done. People can sort it out for themselves and have a model railway of their own. What does 'East Midlands type area' even mean? I've tried offering Ellis and other (potential) readers advice from the advice and experience I've been given. If you're going to lie, if you're going to reject alternative advice, fine - you don't have to implement my advice, but don't also lie about what has been said.

 

Anyway, say what you will about me. As far as I'm concerned, well, I'll be logging out of RM Web once I've posted this.

[RJS1977]

On 25/05/2021 at 03:21, Ellis NZ said:

 

 

 

 

Looking good - though I do wonder if there's room for a third curved point off the fiddle yard approach and taking the third siding from the back off that (thus making both the second and third sidings longer.

 

I'd also consider having a crossover between 'Platform 10' and the top line into the maintenance shed (possibly moving the shed to the left) to create a run-round loop, which would increase the variety of trains that could be run. 

[Kris]

5 hours ago, JonnyNicholson said:

From 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."

 

Precisely, what is wrong? Then how is 'it' wrong? Maybe Kris can answer those questions...

 

5 hours ago, JonnyNicholson said:

You know, I'm done. People can sort it out for themselves and have a model railway of their own. What does 'East Midlands type area' even mean? I've tried offering Ellis and other (potential) readers advice from the advice and experience I've been given. If you're going to lie, if you're going to reject alternative advice, fine - you don't have to implement my advice, but don't also lie about what has been said.

 

Anyway, say what you will about me. As far as I'm concerned, well, I'll be logging out of RM Web once I've posted this.

 

Jonny, this is meant to be a friendly forum where advice, suggestions and help can be freely sort and given. Those who responded do so freely. When I give suggestions, advice or offer help I never have an expectation that it will be taken up. If it is then great, if it is not, then that is great as well, as there is normally more than one way to reach a desired outcome. If you look back at this thread you will see that after my initial suggestion Ellis changed his plans to something that was similar to that I had suggested. A little while later there was another suggestion and Ellis again changed his plan. This is now different from that I had suggested but, as I said earlier in this thread, it is a better plan. More important than this however, is that Ellis is happy with the plan. 

 

Now as you have asked me a direct question (despite my distaste as to the way it has been asked) I will answer. 

 

I said that I felt the original plan had the appearance of a steam age branch. I stand by this. Ellis has said that he wants to run trains that are from 2000 onwards.

• On a branch line at this time the passenger services would be handled exclusively by DMU's or EMU's. This would have removed the need for a bay platform. On a real branch rationalisation would have seen this bay removed. 
• The second part I felt was steam age was the over complexity of the MPD. This was overly complex and would have been rationalised for ease of operation by 2000. 
• The extra branch coming in towards the bottom (I assumed this was serving an industry) also felt like something that would be far more likely to be seen in steam age as rail served businesses are very scarce now and where they do exist (and have existed since 2000) they have easy access and can generally take long trains. 

 

Now before I finish this post Jonny, you have accused me of saying that the hobby is only open to certain people. This is something that I clearly have never said. I would kindly ask that you retract this deeply hurtful statement. 

[Dungrange]

13 hours ago, JonnyNicholson said:

If you're going to lie, if you're going to reject alternative advice, fine - you don't have to implement my advice, but don't also lie about what has been said.

 

There are no 'lies' in this thread: that's just your paranoia.  All you will find is a number of opinions and some of these obviously differ from your own.  Clearly as a result of your condition (ASD) you interpret things in a particular way.  That's not wrong, but you have to learn to understand that others are entitled to have an alternative opinion and look at things in a way that's different to how you see the world.  You are entitled to an opinion (as we all are), but you need to learn to respect the opinions of others.  If you're unwilling to try and see other people's point of view, then you are implying that you think your opinion is superior and that will simply be perceived as arrogant (because that's what it is).  Internet forums are simply a place to share ideas, tips and advice - it's like a virtual model railway club.  Others can choose to follow or ignore that advice as they see fit.  There are several people on this site for whom I value their opinions and trust what they say (even although I have never met them).  There are a few others that I couldn't care less what they think, because their attitude does not impress me.

 

On the one hand, you say "l'm not going to tell him what to do" and on the other you say  "if you're going to reject alternative advice, fine - you don't have to implement my advice".  That sounds as though you are annoyed that your advice isn't being followed, which probably stems from your unwillingness to accept the opinions of others.  Most people on this site give their opinions and advice freely: they don't have a little strop when they think someone is following a suggestion made by someone else that they don't agree with.  Besides, it's not exactly clear to me what 'advice' you think you've given.  You've expressed an opinion that playing trains is more important to you than attempting to build a scale model and operate it like the prototype, but what have you actually suggested that would help  @Ellis NZ improve the operating potential of his plan?  Most other contributors have made suggestions for potential improvements or highlighted potential issues that means I think @Ellis NZ's latest plan is an improvement on the first one and I think that is a general consensus.  However, like most others, I don't actually care what @Ellis NZ builds because I'll never see the layout, unless he posts a picture of the completed layout here.  Of course that doesn't mean that I'm not wiling to highlight potential issues or pitfalls that I've learned from the nearly 40 years that I've been interested in model railways.  I've made hundreds of post on here asking for information, advice or opinions on a wide range of topics and I've been grateful for the most of the replies I've received and I've also made hundreds of posts that attempt to answer questions posed by others.  That is how RMWeb works.

 

7 hours ago, Kris said:

Now before I finish this post Jonny, you have accused me of saying that the hobby is only open to certain people. This is something that I clearly have never said. I would kindly ask that you retract this deeply hurtful statement. 

 

To be honest, I don't think that accusation was specifically aimed at just you - I think it's aimed at anyone with an opinion that is different from @JonnyNicholson - ie anyone who wants a model railway that tries to emulate prototypical practice.

[Ellis NZ]

Hi All,

 

I am sorry that this post has had to decend into an argument. I was never intending that for my first post. All I can say is that I appreciate everyones input as that's what I ultimately asked for. It seems a shame to create anger out of offering advice. 

 

I can't thank everyone enough for the various options that were iven and I am really happy with the changes and what I have ended up with. Feeling much more confident about putting more time and money into purchasing and laying track now with this plan refined. It certainly brings truth to the idea that more minds can help a problem. 

 

 

@RJS1977 I have tried various ways of altering the fiddle yard to increase another leg but constantly run into issues with the radius being too small, but I defintiely tried again after reading your post. 

 

So now this brings me to another few questions. This may not be the section of the forum but I thought for now I would continue on:

• Woodland Scenics underlay vs Cork for raising track and creating a shoulder. I don't need the sound deadening as such as the whole top of the board is foam. I just want to make the track sit up correctly but is that really the case in the TMD I have seen many variations and wonder if its just a personal taste thing or not?
• Also anyone handy with signal positioning and neeeds ( Irealise this can be quite complex so happy to move it over the the signal section of the forums.
• Finally apart from electric motors on the mainline and into the yard/depot what style of point control would be common with the depot. Would they be levers etc?

Many Thanks again everyone. I am finding this advice much more motivating than previous attempts at layouts

 

E

 

 

[Kris]

Hello Ellis.

 

Signalling is easy. One for each of the platforms and one to control the exit from the MPD. 

 

In your MPD you do not need to raise the track. If you look at the photo below (taken at Laira during an open day a couple of years ago) the track is level with the ground. This also shows that leavers are in use in the MPD here, however I do not know if this is the case else where. 

[RJS1977]

I'd actually say slightly easier still - the MPD exit just needs a "stop and await instructions" board in modern practice.

[Dungrange]

On 25/05/2021 at 03:21, Ellis NZ said:

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

 

Yes, I can relate to that - I've often fancied building a small micro-layout, but by the time I want to add an extra siding, make the sidings longer, it would no longer look like the layout that inspired that thought.

 

On 25/05/2021 at 03:21, Ellis NZ said:

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 redeveloped/reused site of previous sheds from the steam era. 

 

I think this definitely looks better.  The layout of the TMD looks more logical to me and it looks like you have space to operate some longer trains if desired.  The longest storage track in the fiddle yard would now accommodate a Class 220 Voyager type unit (possibly a Class 221) or alternatively a locomotive hauled working, such as the top and tail services that DRS operated on both the Cumbrian Coast and in East Anglia in recent years.  I suspect that you might be limited to two locomotives and two coaches (rather than the three that were used on the Cumbrian Coast services), but at least you have the option of something more interesting if you want.

 

I think my only 'concern' with the plan as currently shown is your scenic break.  If you are now modelling part of a large station, then in reality, there would be lots of point work in a multitrack formation in the station throat (ie the top right corner of your plan).  In the model, you only have a single track.  As I see it, the only way to explain the lack of a more complex station throat is, as has already been suggested, to have a long wall along the rear of the layout (about 11 ft in length and a scale 30 ft high).  This would need to look as though it supports a large roof (which is effectively behind your back-scene).  You could then arrange to have a covered footbridge that connects your roadway at the maintenance depot and passes through the wall.  The stairs down to 'Platform 8' would then be behind the wall, so you wouldn't need to model them.

 

In trying to think what this would look like, it struck me that there is an example very near me: Edinburgh Waverley.  Waverley has a large overall roof that spans all of the platforms at the station bar two on the south side of the station (which were I think added later than the others to handle trains on the former 'south suburban' line).  Access to the station from East Market Street (which runs to the south of the station) is via a footbridge over these two platforms, so the next time I'm over that way, I'll try and remember to take a couple of photographs to show what I think may work from a scenic perspective.  You can sort of see what I'm thinking about from Google Streetview, but the topography of the ground to the south of the station doesn't match your scenario and the presence of a wall on East Market Street makes it a little difficult to envisage how it might look on your layout.  However, I'm glad that you seem to be happy with your plan.

Edited May 29, 2021 by Dungrange

[Will Crompton]

Hi Ellis, been following your design thoughts/progress with interest. Like others who have posted I like the platform 9/10 idea of just seeing the bay platforms for shorter formations on one side of a larger station. I recommend having a look at pictures of a rather wonderful layout by Stephen Hannington called Surrey Arms. Here is a link to some pictures

 

https://esngblog.com/2017/10/31/not-quite-a-minories/

 

It's set in the BR steam era but uses the idea of just showing the edge of a larger terminus. Dungrange above writes that the scenic break becomes an issue and suggests a solution based on Edinburgh Waverly. I think Surrey Arms uses a design along the lines he suggests.

[Dungrange]

3 hours ago, Ellis NZ said:

I am sorry that this post has had to descend into an argument. I was never intending that for my first post. All I can say is that I appreciate everyone's input as that's what I ultimately asked for. It seems a shame to create anger out of offering advice. 

 

You don't need to apologise, but welcome to the 'real' RMWeb.  You'll find there are certain topics where some individuals hold quite strong opinions on subjects such as track gauge (00 vs EM vs P4) or control system (DC vs DCC) or even between automation control software (iTrain vs Traincontroller).  Thankfully most are willing to engage in an amicable way and accept that others do things differently from the way they would or do.

 

3 hours ago, Ellis NZ said:

So now this brings me to another few questions. This may not be the section of the forum but I thought for now I would continue on:

• Woodland Scenics underlay vs Cork for raising track and creating a shoulder. I don't need the sound deadening as such as the whole top of the board is foam. I just want to make the track sit up correctly but is that really the case in the TMD I have seen many variations and wonder if its just a personal taste thing or not?
• Also anyone handy with signal positioning and needs ( I realise this can be quite complex so happy to move it over the the signal section of the forums.
• Finally apart from electric motors on the mainline and into the yard/depot what style of point control would be common with the depot. Would they be levers etc?

 

It's probably best to ask questions in separate threads if you want to get a wide range of views or experience or the questions become quite technically specific, as the experts on something like signalling may not look at threads with a title 'layout design help'.

 

However, to give you my opinion on your questions:

1. Mainlines tend to have a clear shoulder, but my perception is that there is no or little shoulder to the ballast in a yard or TMD.  I'm sure there will be someone who can produce a photograph showing a shoulder at location X, but I'd have thought that the photograph that @Kris has posted above would be the norm rather than the exception.  I'd see the variation in level that a shoulder would create as a potential trip hazard to staff moving about the site, so it would probably be frowned upon in today's Health and Safety culture.  As such, my answer would probably be neither.  I'm using closed cell foam on my own layout, but that's driven by a desire for noise reduction, which I think is slightly better with closed cell foam rather than cork.  If you think a small shoulder will look better, I'd go with whatever material is cheaper or available locally and don't overdo the thickness.
2. Signalling - as per the response from @Kris.  There wouldn't be any signalling within the depot, just signals that control departure from your two platforms and something controlling exit from the TMD into the station.  I'd probably see that as a ground signal, but there could be other options as @RJS1977 highlights.
3. I'd expect the points within the TMD to be hand operated levers.  However, as you say, I'd expect the points that control access to your platforms and entry / exit from the TMD to be motor controlled from the Signal Control Centre.

[The Stationmaster]

Don't forget that the depot exit line also needs a trap point.

[Zomboid]

3 hours ago, Dungrange said:

trying to think what this would look like, it struck me that there is an example very near me: Edinburgh Waverley. 

I thought of Waverley first, but York has a similar feature, and the through lines at Manchester Piccadilly are in a similar fashion too.

[Flying Pig]

I've had this alternative idea knocking around my head for a few days.  It depicts a through line passing a TMD some way out of the centre of a city, and a station with a recently added bay for terminating local services.  Through passenger services continue to a spur hidden behind a rail-served industry.  I'm thinking up to 3 cars for the through train, say 156 or 170, and one or two for the locals, e.g. Pacer, 150 or 153. We see just one end of the depot with more facilities off stage, which gives ample reason for moving  locos around.

 

The location of the depot on the outskirts of a city is somewhat inspired by Midland Road in Leeds and the relationship between the station and depot by Ashburys station in Manchester and the back entrance to Ardwick depot.

 

Below is a representative sketch only: it should be fairly close to scale, but could benefit from some fettling to get the proportions right.  There's room for the offscene curves into the fiddle yard to be up to 30" radius.

 

[Will Crompton]

I think if you go forward with the platform 9, 10 idea with the depot adjacent there is, collectively, enough UK prototype justification during the period in question to justify this, although not all in the East Midlands. I won't tell anyone if you don't! I was running through my head for examples the other night as an alternative to counting sheep.

 

Hull Botanic Gardens TMD is only a few hundred metres from Hull Paragon Station. There is the small depot right next to Sheffield Midland Station. Colchester depot is close to the station as is the fuelling/stabling point at Barrow-in-Furness. In your area of interest Nottingham Eastcroft TMD is close to Nottingham Station. It services DMUs and I think as of the last year or so Boden Rail also use the site for locomotives (perhaps someone with greater knowledge could confirm this).

 

I think with a bit of careful planning you could have the big station bay platforms, a small TMD/stabling/fuelling point allowing fuelling DMUs as well as locos. The Ipswich stabling point right next to the station i think receives/received traction oil by rail so you could justify a siding for tank wagons. I wonder if one could also add a cheeky generic siding next to the depot which could, depending on how the mood took you, be used for wagon repair or stabling of engineers wagons.

 

Also depending how you worked with view blockers/backscenes to the left of your plan you could decide that the main statiion is a through station with some terminal bay platforms.

 

[Aire Head]

On 29/05/2021 at 08:15, Ellis NZ said:

 

I am sorry that this post has had to decend into an argument. I was never intending that for my first post.

 

You have nothing to apologise for and if anything I owe you an apology for rising to bait and starting the argument.l

[Dungrange]

@Ellis NZ

 

Below is a photograph of the southeast corner of Edinburgh Waverley station taken from East Market Street and below that is another photograph taken from Jeffrey Street, which has a slightly higher vantage point.  If you are going with the Platform 9/10 idea, I'd image your backscene looking similar (albeit adjusted to the local architecture of the East Midlands).

 

Behind that wall is the majority of the station, but you can see platforms 8 and 9 to the front of the wall in the second photograph due to the higher vantage point.  The car park in the foreground is what was once the goods yard at Edinburgh Waverley, which has long since gone, but in your scenario has been appropriated for the servicing of locomotives.  I could just imagine the building in the car park being a traction maintenance shed.

 

 

 

At Edinburgh, access through the wall is further west, but I see no reason why you couldn't arrange for access at your station to be between the end of platform 8 / 9 in the above photograph and the end of the wall supporting the overall roof, to provide the scenic break at the entry to your fiddle yard.

 

Below is a photograph of the entrance to the station from the north east corner, which shows a simple square cut hole in the wall.  The lifts to the right of the photograph are a more recent addition to enhance accessibility and it would be up to you to decide whether you'd want to include something similar.

 

 

At the north east, the way into the station doesn't actually span a railway track on the outside of the wall (it spans tracks within the station), but there is no reason why it couldn't. The photograph below shows the location of the photograph above taken from street level.  You'd just need to try and relate your vehicle turning area (like the one in the image below) with the wall on the backscene and your railway track from the fiddle yard, to define the optimum location for the footbridge to act as a scenic break.

 

 

For the sake of completeness, the image below shows the stairs that allow able bodied passengers to climb up to the entrance.  Less able bodied passengers or those with luggage would use the lift that can be seen in the first and second of these photographs from the north east.

 

 

Hopefully these might help you imagine a suitable entrance to your station that would help to hide the fiddle yard. 

Edited June 6, 2021 by Dungrange
typo

[Dungrange]

On 29/05/2021 at 15:47, Flying Pig said:

I've had this alternative idea knocking around my head for a few days. 

 

My first thought on this was that I like the inclusion of freight (because it's something that I like, but also because @Ellis NZ set out with a desire to include freight).  My subsequent thought was that the operation of the freight facility would be rather boring, as there isn't a run round 'on stage' and not much shunting potential.  However, having given this some thought, with the other half of the run round in the fiddle yard, I can see that this could work quite well - the assumption being that there is a more significant goods facility 'off stage' to the right.

 

An inbound 'Enterprise' type service could arrive in the goods loop, with the wagons bound for the 'on stage' facility at the front of the train (the rest of the train would always be imagined as being off stage).  The locomotive would uncouple and run back to the fiddle yard via the main line.  After a period of time sufficient to shunt the imagined other half of the train, the 'on stage' wagons can then be propelled for unloading.  Servicing or refuelling of the locomotive may then follow.

 

For the departure, the wagons would be drawn out to the goods loop.  If this was run straight to the fiddle yard, then the locomotive would be at the wrong end of the train for the next time the service was required.  The locomotive could simply be lifted manually in the fiddle yard.  However, to avoid stock handling, the outbound train could be stopped in the goods loop, the locomotive could be uncoupled and run round the train via the main line.  The wagons would then be propelled into the fiddle yard if we imagine that the cut of wagons are being shunted onto the rear of a departing 'Enterprise' train.

 

If the locomotive being used to shunt the freight is only being used for that purpose, then it could return to the depot after the freight train is marshalled offstage, or alternatively, if the locomotive is to haul said 'Enterprise' service, then it can simply be either left in the fiddle yard or run round 'on stage' from the goods loop to the mainline (which may be required by the imagined 'off stage' arrangement).

 

Therefore, I can see that this may add to the operational potential, which means that something other than just driving locomotives and diesel multiple units could be undertaken.  I guess the issue would be trying to get the proportions right (ie the length of the freight facility, the length of the goods loop and the length of the fiddle yard track for this freight train would all have to be similar.

 

I guess it's just up to @Ellis NZ to give us his thoughts.

[RJS1977]

2 hours ago, Dungrange said:

@Ellis NZ

 

Below is a photograph of the southeast corner of Edinburgh Waverley station taken from East Market Street and below that is another photograph taken from Jeffrey Street, which has a slightly higher vantage point.  If you are going with the Platform 9/10 idea, I'd image your backscene looking similar (albeit adjusted to the local architecture of the East Midlands).

 

Behind that wall is the majority of the station, but you can see platforms 8 and 9 to the front of the wall in the second photograph due to the higher vantage point.  The car park in the foreground is what was once the goods yard at Edinburgh Waverley, which has long since gone, but in your scenario has been appropriated for the servicing of locomotives.  I could just imagine the building in the car park being a traction maintenance shed.

 

 

 

At Edinburgh, access through the wall is further west, but I see no reason why you couldn't arrange for access at your station to be between the end of platform 8 / 9 in the above photograph and the end of the wall supporting the overall roof, to provide the scenic break at the entry to your fiddle yard.

 

Below is a photograph of the entrance to the station from the north east corner, which shows a simple square cut hole in the wall.  The lifts to the right of the photograph are a more recent addition to enhance accessibility and it would be up to you to decide whether you'd want to include something similar.

 

 

At the north east, the way into the station doesn't actually span a railway track on the outside of the wall (it spans tracks within the station), but there is no reason why it couldn't. The photograph below shows the location of the photograph above taken from street level.  You'd just need to try and relate your vehicle turning area (like the one in the image below) with the wall on the backscene and your railway track from the fiddle yard, to define the optimum location for the footbridge to act as a scenic break.

 

 

For the sake of completeness, the image below shows the stairs that allow able bodied passengers to climb up to the entrance.  Less able bodied passengers or those with luggage would use the lift that can be seen in the first and second of these photographs from the north east.

 

 

Hopefully these might help you imagine a suitable entrance to your station that would help to hide the fiddle yard. 

 

Less grand, but there's also the footbridge at Guildford station which spans the carriage sidings to provide a rear entrance.

 

Carnforth also has a long footbridge over the Furness & Midland lines to the former Steamtown site.

[Flying Pig]

13 minutes ago, Dungrange said:

An inbound 'Enterprise' type service could arrive in the goods loop, with the wagons bound for the 'on stage' facility at the front of the train (the rest of the train would always be imagined as being off stage). 

 

Do mixed trips to multiple destinations actually exist on the modern railway?  My feeling is that the wagons would arrive and depart as a block load with the only shunting being the loco running round with the wagons standing in the goods loop.  There isn't room on even this quite generous layout for a complete runround of credible size for the modern railway, so completing the runround via the fiddle yard is an unavoidable part of the subterfuge.

 

 

[Dungrange]

1 hour ago, Flying Pig said:

Do mixed trips to multiple destinations actually exist on the modern railway? 

 

The original post simply referred to mid-2000 onwards and not all freight trains were block trains at the start of that period: there were still a few 'Enterprise' services operating in the early part of the time frame.  However, I agree that most if not all freight on the current railway are block trains, which is the reason why most of the facilities envisaged in your plan have closed in recent years.

 

In the space available, the freight train would likely have to be something like five or six vans (eg VGAs) but that probably wouldn't be an economic block load.  Therefore, there is either a need to simply pretend that those five or six vans represent a much larger block train (in the same way as I was willing to imagine that the Flying Scotsman was a two coach train when I was a child), or there is a need create a back story that defines how that load might become an economic trainload - ie the wagons are tagged onto the back of another cut of wagons for another rail served customer, that are going to or from the same general area.

 

Part of the problem with the current railway from a wagonload perspective is competition between rail freight operators for what could be considered baseline flows.  Many of the former 'Speedlink' and 'Enterprise' services on the periphery of the network existed largely because of the demand from a particular customer, and if that flow was lost, then the rest of the service became uneconomic.  As an example, albeit not in the East Midlands, there were Enterprise services on the Far North Line at the start in the early 2000s, but when Morrison's bought Safeway in 2004 and moved away from rail, the remaining traffic to Georgemas Junction was no longer economic and the service stopped shortly thereafter.  I understand that the loss of bulk cement distribution from Oxwellmains to Freightliner in 2002, which had accounted for part of the makeup of several EWS Enterprise services prior to that date, was effectively the start of wagonload services being lost across Scotland.  It effectively became a house of cards - each lost customer, potentially makes a service unviable.  When that service is stopped, the remaining flows carried are also lost, which means further services becoming uneconomic, which is how we've got the present day situation.

 

To be a plausible scenario for @Ellis NZ, there would be a need to assume that a critical flow has not been lost.  The imagined flow wouldn't be true mixed wagonloads for multiple customers as may have existed a few decades ago with multiple different types of wagons, but could be just two cuts of wagons.  I suppose that it's possible to assume that both cuts are from the same company who just so happens to have two sites that are close by.  Product X is loaded at the 'on stage' facility and Product Y is loaded at an 'off stage' facility that's maybe a mile away, but these are both combined and taken in the same train to a common distribution depot at the other end of the country.  The reason why this company has two separate facilities may be historic, due to a past takeover, which hasn't yet resulted in rationalisation of and relocation of facilities.   Is that a plausible enough scenario, for this fictional place?

Edited June 6, 2021 by Dungrange