WR 1960s planned layout - feedback gratefully received

[The Stationmaster]

The only problem I can see with it as now redrawn is that it has virtually no goods yard capacity - effectively just two short, cramped, sidings alongside the station and you've lost the two sidings off the branchline loop.  The way 'LNER 4479' drew it made a lot more sense in terms of freight facilities.

 

Another thing which doesn't sit too well in my mind is the facing connection into the loco sidings  - pretty unusual even at that date so i would go for a trailing connection on the straight instead.

[DCB]

Looks good.  Facing connection to loco shed dodgy on three counts, prototype as per Stationmaster, it loses a siding as the stub has to be cleared to get locos on and off the turntable, and taking the curved road on a facing point is a well known provoker of derailments.  

There is scope for putting more or longer siding off the branch in the area "Above" the branch platform 

[Aire Head]

Have you considered rather than a branch line station having the industry at the end of the branch, perhaps a small quarry? 
 

You could run small trains behind a private owner  loco like a Hornby Peckett. The wagons are collected at the station attached to a good trains or formed up into a larger train which then leaves for the fiddle yard.  The empties are brought back and the process is reversed?

[Harlequin]

7 hours ago, Blinddog said:

 

 

So, taking into LNER's redrawn plan and David's branch station suggestions, the redrawn plan is as below. I've ditched the 'industry' but kept the good run round loop. I'm assuming that the short headshunt for the goods loop will function as the required trap points?

 

I'm (obviously!) no great shakes at using anyrail but I think it all fits and should work. All points are streamline medium, long or curved. I have some of the short points, but after what I've read here, they'll stay in their boxes and the wallet will need to take another hit to replace them.

 

The main line platforms are over 1.7m as shown and I can probably coax another 100mm as I plan on making bespoke platforms using the Scalescenes pack rather than using the Hornby platforms shown (which seem to be the only option in anyrail without drawing your own). So easily enough for a 4 x Mk 1 coach train (1.4m as measured with my largest loco), and maybe 5 at a push. The branch I plan to limit to a maximum of a large prairie plus 3 Mk 1 suburbans, so again fine as the branch terminus platform will curve to follow the track beyond the start of the straight platform shown (just can't draw it).

 

Hopefully this is a big improvement on the original?

 

It's looking really promising. I have some thoughts and suggestions:

 

 

Blue arrow: The turnout in the big station that leads from the main Down (Inbound) line to the yard could be moved up if you changed the straight turnout for a Curved Left. That would give more length in the yard.

Green arrows: The station could be rotated very slightly clockwise. That would give more room for the yard, help to open the radius of the approach curves slightly and give more room for the turntable and shed area, which is looking a bit cramped at the moment. (There is some scope to have the baseboard slightly wider to help with this and a small fillet might also help without compromising reach into the top left corner too much.)

Left Red circle: Those two turnouts could be combined in a Slip (a single Slip might work) and that would give more length in the yard again.

Brown arrows: The yard sidings need to have some splay between them in one position or the other for lorries. Are you planning on having a goods shed? Is there room for it?

Red scribble on left: Do you need 4 full length platforms? If the one at the back was shorter (let's not use the word "bay"!) it would add some variety, maybe give room for station buildings, maybe help with the rotation if you did it, and could give you and end-loading point if you wanted.

Top Red circle: You could eliminate the nasty wiggle by using the opposite handed turnout with it's turning route in the natural curve of the lower siding - whatever radius turnout best fits the curve.

Right Red circle (sausage): Sorry, I haven't read all of the thread but this suggests 1600mm long cassettes. Is that right? A single cassette that long is almost certainly too long to handle safely and having it plug in to a location where access is limited by the backscene in front could make it difficult to use.

 

Edited June 28, 2021 by Harlequin

[Phil Bullock]

On 24/06/2021 at 20:04, Pacific231G said:

 

For a secondary main line I think four coaches is a bit short but five is entirely credible 

 

Hereford portion from Paddington.... 3 or 4 coaches with 4-6-0 or Hymek/wArship in Diesel times....

[Pacific231G]

I agree with Mike about the lack of goods yard capacity and, since you will be remarshalling wagons to and from the branch line. maybe the two roads  alongside the "branch" platform could be shunting roads with the actual goods yard a kickback from one of them. That would also use the "waste" space between the branchline and the edge of the main board. It's not a common terminus layout but it was good enough for Frank Dyer's Borchester Market. (BTW have you looked at that?)

The only thing that doesn't quite ring true for me is the dedicated branch line platform. I don't know of any terminus that had such an arrangement.* However, since that fact is lost in the general tangle of pointwork in the throat it probably doesn't matter and, on balance, is preferable to tangling the branch with the main line approach pointwork. The "branch" platform is also now accessible from both sides of the main line so usable for local trains from the main as well. 

I think you're wise to keep the branch though as it addsa  lot of operational value. If it makes the layout a bit much for one person operation, just give the users of the branch line a rotten service- three train a day should be plenty for them!

 

*I do though know one very successful layout - the late Andy Hart's "Achaux"- that did have a single track "branch" connected to just one platform. It was actually supposed to be a connecting line to another main line rather than a branch and was electrified to boot (That allowed Andy to run a few favourite electric locos on his layout without having to add overhead knitting to the whole terminus) Achaux also clearly demonstrated the added operational value of an additonal route to the  main line with through coaches being added to and subtracted from the main expresses. I don't know how common that still was on the Western Region in the period you're modelling but it was still going on apace at Fort William until the old terminus station closed in the 1970s.   

 

[Zomboid]

51 minutes ago, Pacific231G said:

he only thing that doesn't quite ring true for me is the dedicated branch line platform. I don't know of any terminus that had such an arrangement.* Ho

It's not exactly the same, but at Brighton there are a couple of platforms which only serve the West Coastway and are inaccessible from the main line/ East Coastway. And at the other end of the country, Inverness has some platforms accessible from Aberdeen/ Perth, and some which are accessible from the Dingwall route, but very few (if any) which are accessible from both.

 

The problem here is that there is clearly ample space before the divergence for all platforms to be connected to all tracks, so it's likely that they all would be.

[The Stationmaster]

One thing people seem to be missing is that the 'fourth platform line' has to be used as the arrival line for freight trains if such trains are to be run round by the train engine/in order to allow an engine to get to the other end of the train to shunt freight traffic.   This is where the latest plan  has diverged somewhat from the layout suggested by 'LNER 4479' which clearly recognised that line could not be used as part of the freight traffic facility and that there wasn't sufficient space for more than one siding for such traffic alongside the station.

 

'Harlequin's proposal to swing the station platforms to make more space and widen the baseboard helps solve the space dilemma for freight facilities but it still doesn't avoid the use of the line by the platform as an arrival (and departure) line for freight trains.  And, incidentally, because of that the suggested slip would have to be a double slip - the layout wouldn't work with a single slip.  But using a slip instead of two points would be an excellent idea as it would allow some extra siding length.

 

The alternative would be to make that line by the platform part of the freight facility and use the opposite platform face for the arrival and departure of freight trains.  while it would clearly foul the branch line any associated shunting would be completely clear of the 'main lines'.  Overall however apart from possibly one siding (as drawn by 'LNER 4479' I would go along with the didea of 'kicjkback' sidings for the freight facility thus moving some of that activity away from the station area to where 'LNER 4479' drew them in.  Such short distance sparation between passenger and freight activity was very common in the real world so wouldn't look out of place. 

 

As for a branch coming into a terminus while it was common it certainly existed on the GWR network and I first refer the assembled company to Aberystwyth (GWR rebuild version) which had a separate platform for the Carmarthen 'branch'

https://www.s-r-s.org.uk/html/gwu/S3163.htm

 

Barnstaple Victoria Road managed with just two platform faces

https://www.s-r-s.org.uk/html/gwe/S780.htm

 

And Bodmin managed with only one

https://www.s-r-s.org.uk/html/gwf/S1091.htm

[Curlew]

The branch line would probably be a late addition, so would have to make best use of the space then available, unless the whole station site was completely redeveloped. Buxton LNWR was a good example where the existing station was retained and adapted. The former goods yard was completely abandoned in favour of the Midland Railway premises after the branch line from Ashbourne was built. The engine shed was also moved to  a different site and considerably enlarged.

[KingEdwardII]

43 minutes ago, The Stationmaster said:

Aberystwyth (GWR rebuild version) which had a separate platform for the Carmarthen 'branch'

Strictly, Aberystwyth had 2 platforms for Carmarthen (1 & 2) although platform 2 could be reached from the Shrewsbury line as well, following the GWR changes that involved lengthening the platforms (1920s).

 

Interestingly in light of the discussions here, the only way for a freight train to/from the Carmarthen line to reach the extensive goods facilities which were all on the north side of the station was to go via Platform 2. Even when the triangle was added in 1939 it did not connect with the Carmarthen line.

 

This arrangement was forced by the fairly severe curve necessary for the Carmarthen line to make its way to the south across the river and avoid Pendinas mountain which dominates the topography south of the town.

 

Yours,  Mike.

[Blinddog]

11 hours ago, The Stationmaster said:

One thing people seem to be missing is that the 'fourth platform line' has to be used as the arrival line for freight trains if such trains are to be run round by the train engine/in order to allow an engine to get to the other end of the train to shunt freight traffic.   This is where the latest plan  has diverged somewhat from the layout suggested by 'LNER 4479' which clearly recognised that line could not be used as part of the freight traffic facility and that there wasn't sufficient space for more than one siding for such traffic alongside the station.

 

On 29/06/2021 at 02:59, Harlequin said:

 

It's looking really promising. I have some thoughts and suggestions:

 

Blue arrow: The turnout in the big station that leads from the main Down (Inbound) line to the yard could be moved up if you changed the straight turnout for a Curved Left. That would give more length in the yard.

Green arrows: The station could be rotated very slightly clockwise. That would give more room for the yard, help to open the radius of the approach curves slightly and give more room for the turntable and shed area, which is looking a bit cramped at the moment. (There is some scope to have the baseboard slightly wider to help with this and a small fillet might also help without compromising reach into the top left corner too much.)

Left Red circle: Those two turnouts could be combined in a Slip (a single Slip might work) and that would give more length in the yard again.

Brown arrows: The yard sidings need to have some splay between them in one position or the other for lorries. Are you planning on having a goods shed? Is there room for it?

Red scribble on left: Do you need 4 full length platforms? If the one at the back was shorter (let's not use the word "bay"!) it would add some variety, maybe give room for station buildings, maybe help with the rotation if you did it, and could give you and end-loading point if you wanted.

Top Red circle: You could eliminate the nasty wiggle by using the opposite handed turnout with it's turning route in the natural curve of the lower siding - whatever radius turnout best fits the curve.

Right Red circle (sausage): Sorry, I haven't read all of the thread but this suggests 1600mm long cassettes. Is that right? A single cassette that long is almost certainly too long to handle safely and having it plug in to a location where access is limited by the backscene in front could make it difficult to use.

 

 

Taking into account the above and my original intent of having only 3 platforms (but then getting carried away with platform fever - surprised I stopped at 4), If I rotate the layout as Harlequin suggested, but make platform 1 a single platform  and platforms 2 &3 an island, the goods arrival "platform" disappears and frees up space for a better goods yard. Using a double slip also frees up space. Fixing the awkward wiggle in the shed/turntable entry also helps (just me trying to use up points that I have, but that's probably a false economy).

 

I've also added a corner fillet as LNER originally suggested and widened the baseboard in the station/goods area.

 

I think I've also fixed the facing points into the turntable/shed/loco sidings area issue - but let me know if I'm still missing something.

 

Hopefully this is an improved version and getting close to a final plan.

 

Thanks for all the comments and suggestions and discussions. Its been really helpful

 

And the cassettes are intended to be modular in standard sizes, locking together to form a complete train. Although they are a way off as it'll take a while to get the layout built and runnign

 

thanks all

 

Phil 

[Blinddog]

I was also thinking that maybe the top left corner near the turntable is really busy, so was thinking of simplifying to the below. One of the 2 upper sidings would have an engine shed and they would share water and coaling facilities. probably need to add ash pits as well. Does this make sense? 

 

[NHY 581]

Morning BD

 

How about taking a look here ? 

 

 

The terminus itself is a a nice self contained station and a separate branchline could be accomodated via one of the spurs by the turntable. 

 

The continuous run below the station could be truncated to form a separate branch platform at the terminus end. 

 

As for the terminus itself, if the plan satisfied Frank Dyer, then it must work. 

Apologies but I am unable to credit the trackplan. 

 

Photo from the thread and taken by Gordon S. 

 

 

Rob. 

[Zomboid]

5 hours ago, Blinddog said:

I was also thinking that maybe the top left corner near the turntable is really busy, so was thinking of simplifying to the below. One of the 2 upper sidings would have an engine shed and they would share water and coaling facilities. probably need to add ash pits as well. Does this make sense? 

 

I wouldn't bother with a shed. Just have basic turning & servicing facilities, and put the proper shed a couple of imaginary miles up the line. It'll give you an opportunity to run the branch train/ loco up and down the main at the start/ end of the day too.

[Harlequin]

21 minutes ago, Zomboid said:

I wouldn't bother with a shed. Just have basic turning & servicing facilities, and put the proper shed a couple of imaginary miles up the line. It'll give you an opportunity to run the branch train/ loco up and down the main at the start/ end of the day too.

 

Or,...

 

Represent the engine shed in low relief. That gives you room for ash pits in the lengths of track that are actually modelled and the shed might help to disguise that corner.

 

P.S. Having the track so close to the corner makes it more difficult to avoid a discontinuity in the sky above...

 

[Happy Hippo]

Picking up on Harlequin's point about the cassettes system you have planned, are they just going to dangle out into space, or are you going to have some form of cassette table to support them?

 

The other point about cassettes, is that every train that is on a cassette will need storage somewhere else.  In your drawing you just have a single large cassette which will need to be removed and reversed or placed elsewhere.  You have not mentioned where you intend to remarshal the cassettes or store them.

 

The cassettes I'm building at present for my O gauge railway are multiples of a standard unit (SU), in my case 1 x SU = 9". So I have cassettes of 1 x SU for small locos and Brake vans 2 x SU  for my larger locos and 4 x SU for rolling stock (1 x B set or 6 x mineral wagons).

 

After quite a bit of thought, the cassette table will be a pair of 4' x 2' boards arranged in an 'L' shape.

 

This enables me to break up and remarshal trains on the flat, and have a small storage area on the spur of the 'L'.  Lifting and moving cassettes away from the table is kept to an absolute minimum.

 

Any table for the cassettes you put in must be longer than the maximum train length to allow the smaller cassettes to be separated from the larger ones without pulling them off the end of the table.

 

I appreciate that you are modelling in 4 mm scale, so your cassette dimensions are smaller than mine, but the principle remains the same.

Edited June 30, 2021 by Happy Hippo
Edit for dreadful grammar

[Chimer]

I may be missing something, but I don't see any reason for the extra path from the branch into the goods area (marked in red).  It might be better to lose the facing point and just have the track as a second kick-back siding?  If the idea was to provide a way of running round a train from the branch, then the crossover I've suggested between P3 and the goods arrival road would be an alternative (the two tracks could also paralleled up, and the crossover could be the other way round if preferred).  This would also enable you to run round a branch passenger train.

 

[The Stationmaster]

The latest plan is pretty good - an omission is a trap point where the loop rejoins the branch, easily sorted.

 

The subsequently revised loco area layout with a couple of parallel sidings is much better but you need to think through what you are trying to achieve.  Look at some photos of Kingswear, there are some here

https://picclick.co.uk/Kingswear-Railway-Station-Photo-Churston-and-Torquay-Line-252570768062.html

And you'll see there is only a water crane and a pit (clearly used as a preparation pit  - for oiling inside motion) and not as an ash pit.    But you do need a small shed for the branch engine and station pilot  which means you also need as ashpit (you obviously need a station pilot as incoming trains have to be shunt released).

 

As Chimer has identified you don't have a platform line run round for the branch platform and you could provide by making the freight arrival/departure line parallel to the branch platform and providing a crossover (the opposite way round to the way Chimer has drawn it).  In fact the freight arrival departure line would be more sensibly parallel to the platform line as you can't use it for freight  traffic handling a lot of the time and that would also spread it further away from the middle siding.  

Also of curse you could just as readily use the existing loop to run round propelling the branch train out of the platform and then the engfine uses the loop to get to the other end but I'd still move the freight arrival line parallel to the platform line.

 

[Pacific231G]

10 hours ago, NHY 581 said:

Morning BD

 

How about taking a look here ? 

 

 

The terminus itself is a a nice self contained station and a separate branchline could be accomodated via one of the spurs by the turntable. 

 

The continuous run below the station could be truncated to form a separate branch platform at the terminus end. 

 

 

Indeed

I suggested Borchester Market on Monday in the specific context of a kickback goods yard but it's worth looking at from several aspects. "A Borchester Market layout appreciation topic" does indeed include far more about the layout. but perhaps a few more photos of this iconic and I think relevant layout might be of use here.

I think I took all three of these in 2010 when the layout was at Ally Pally. and they should show the goods yard fairly clearly. 

 

Borchester Market's goods facilities seem to have had more provision (three roads) for shunting wagons than the two sidings for actually handling goods. With just a mileage and shed road the goods yard was rather small for a town requiring a four road main line terminus. In terms of layout operation that was probably worthwhile with the goods yard representing what in reality would have been a larger facility. Borchester Market looks to have been set up to handle passenger trains of up to five coaches and seeing it operating that did seem to be enough to accept as a complete express.

I had the good fortune to see Borchester Market at three exhibtions when the Newhaven MRC group had it and it was one of those layouts (Bradfield Gloucester Road was another) that I found myself standing and watching operations on for ages

 

ISTR that one of the magazines came up with a Borchester Market tribute article with a plan reversioned for RTL track (probably Streamline) but I can't lay hands on it just now.

 

 

On 29/06/2021 at 11:58, The Stationmaster said:

One thing people seem to be missing is that the 'fourth platform line' has to be used as the arrival line for freight trains if such trains are to be run round by the train engine/in order to allow an engine to get to the other end of the train to shunt freight traffic.   This is where the latest plan  has diverged somewhat from the layout suggested by 'LNER 4479' which clearly recognised that line could not be used as part of the freight traffic facility and that there wasn't sufficient space for more than one siding for such traffic alongside the station.

 

'

 

Stangely, throughout this topic, I've always assumed that Phil's  plan is for a three platform terminus. The goods line behind the "branch" platform three gives the visual impression of a larger station but operationally I'd suggest that three platform faces are probably enough. If you've ever seen Bradfield Gloucester Road in action you'll know just how much operation that provides.

 

On separate branch platforms, I knew that at Brighton the "Coastway East" platforms didn't have access to the "Coastway West" line but, even though I once used them every day to get to University, hadn't realised that they didn't have access to the main line either. I wondered about Inverness but took the lines from it to both be mainlines rather than a main and a branch (I rather saw the coastal lines from Brighton that way too given that they are both double track) .I hadn't know that about Aberystwyth, though obviously the VofR had its own platform, so a useful prototype.

Edited June 30, 2021 by Pacific231G
clarity

[KingEdwardII]

5 hours ago, Pacific231G said:

With just a mileage and shed road the goods yard was rather small for a town requiring a four road main line terminus.

Indeed. Going back to Aberystwyth, which is even today a town of modest size, it had an enormous set of goods facilities by the standards discussed here - some 14 sidings or so just on the north side of the station, with an associated long headshunt.  Aberystwyth also had 5 platforms, but this is mostly explained by it being a seaside resort with extensive summertime workings.

 

We tend to underestimate the extent of prototype goods facilities on our layouts. Studying the layout of real stations from the 1920s to the 1960s, I am always struck by the amount of trackwork present, even for locations with very modest populations.

 

One interesting observation in relation to Borchester Market above is the presence of a center track between the two main platform tracks. This enables an arriving loco to be released from its train and move to the loco facilities without disturbing a train ready for departure in the other platform. This matches the prototype at Aberystwyth.

 

One thing to consider is carriage storage - I note from the picture of Borchester Market that there is a long siding next to the leftmost platform for this purpose. There was an equivalent next to platform 5 at Aberystwyth. Anything other than a very simple terminus station is likely to need such a facility - and it should be capable of containing the carriages of a complete train. 

 

Yours,  Mike.

[Blinddog]

18 hours ago, NHY 581 said:

Morning BD

 

How about taking a look here ? 

 

 

The terminus itself is a a nice self contained station and a separate branchline could be accomodated via one of the spurs by the turntable. 

 

The continuous run below the station could be truncated to form a separate branch platform at the terminus end. 

 

As for the terminus itself, if the plan satisfied Frank Dyer, then it must work. 

Rob. 

 

That thread was one I followed and it’s clearly a great plan. I think I’d either have to severely shorten the platforms or lose much of the goods yard to squeeze it into the space I have though as it’s 800mm longer. I think that lack of space is a fairly common theme in this hobby, even though I do realise that I’m luckier than many in that regard

[Blinddog]

12 hours ago, Chimer said:

I may be missing something, but I don't see any reason for the extra path from the branch into the goods area (marked in red).  It might be better to lose the facing point and just have the track as a second kick-back siding?  If the idea was to provide a way of running round a train from the branch, then the crossover I've suggested between P3 and the goods arrival road would be an alternative (the two tracks could also paralleled up, and the crossover could be the other way round if preferred).  This would also enable you to run round a branch passenger train.

 

Thanks for that - excellent idea. I will flip it though as per the Stationmaster's suggestion to avoid facing points on the branch

 

11 hours ago, The Stationmaster said:

As Chimer has identified you don't have a platform line run round for the branch platform and you could provide by making the freight arrival/departure line parallel to the branch platform and providing a crossover (the opposite way round to the way Chimer has drawn it).  In fact the freight arrival departure line would be more sensibly parallel to the platform line as you can't use it for freight  traffic handling a lot of the time and that would also spread it further away from the middle siding.  

 

[Blinddog]

3 hours ago, KingEdwardII said:

One thing to consider is carriage storage - I note from the picture of Borchester Market that there is a long siding next to the leftmost platform for this purpose. There was an equivalent next to platform 5 at Aberystwyth. Anything other than a very simple terminus station is likely to need such a facility - and it should be capable of containing the carriages of a complete train. 

 

Yours,  Mike.

I think I can squeeze a decent length carriage siding in next to the 1st platform to the left. Thanks for the suggestion

[Blinddog]

So this is the latest iteration incorporating:

- run round loop for the branch/goods, although I only think it will work for decent length goods trains if they arrive on the branch platform; good job the branch will only have an intermittent service

- carriage siding added which should, if my measurements are right, comfortably hold 5 63'6" Mk1s

 

- added a little more detail around the cassettes; they'll be modular but in set sizes; they'll be a removable support underneath - has to be removable as it blocks an outwards facing door and, more importantly, my fermenting fridge

 

I think its a massive improvement on where I started, so much thanks from me

[Rivercider]

That looks good to me.

 

You can explain the relatively limited goods facilities by assuming that another larger goods yard serving the town is situated out of sight up the line,

 

cheers