WR 1960s planned layout - feedback gratefully received

[Pacific231G]

On 02/07/2021 at 13:10, Flying Pig said:

 

I for one don't agree that working traps should always be included in layouts built entirely with rtr components and I've said so more than once.  Prototype traps are frequently no more than a couple of switches, which can't be represented with rtr points, especially when they're buried amongst the other pointwork.  They are also quite unobtrusive, not least since the railhead is dark and rusty.  Better leave them out than create unnecessarily complex formations just to include them.  Non-working switches can easily be mocked up if desired.

 

It's a different story with handbuilt track, where realistic traps can fairly easily be created.

It could be worse. Try coming up with a working (or convincing dummy) model of one of these.

I've yet to see such a Taquet d'Arret on any layout but they are very common and I know that mine should have at least two of them, one for the goods yard and one for a private siding. I have copies of pages of a 1961 SNCF track catalogue and a 1950 pw text book and both include diagrams of trap points (dérailleurs)   but I've never actually seen one , only ever devices like the one above or ocasionally trap sidings. 

The design of this trap point looks odd compared with a typical British example because it includes a check rail (contre rail)  This is to prevent a derailed vehicle from departing from the track completely but instead to come to rest on the sleepers.  Either these were only used when they could be a long way back from the principal line being protected or any stray vehicle was assumed to be travelling very slowly so that it would come to rest almost immediately. I'm wondering though whether such an arrangement was ever used in Britain. 

So far as I am aware, there was no use of catch points to prevent wrong line runaways on main lines as nothing that would derail a vehicle was permitted on passenger carrying tracks. I have though seen  a Taquet d'Arret where a goods only line (actually to a port instrallation) continued beyond the end of passenger operation.  

Edited July 6, 2021 by Pacific231G
typos

[Joseph_Pestell]

On 02/07/2021 at 13:10, Flying Pig said:

 

I for one don't agree that working traps should always be included in layouts built entirely with rtr components and I've said so more than once.  Prototype traps are frequently no more than a couple of switches, which can't be represented with rtr points, especially when they're buried amongst the other pointwork.  They are also quite unobtrusive, not least since the railhead is dark and rusty.  Better leave them out than create unnecessarily complex formations just to include them.  Non-working switches can easily be mocked up if desired.

 

It's a different story with handbuilt track, where realistic traps can fairly easily be created.

 

I do notice the absence of traps on many otherwise excellent layouts.

 

Back in the day when I built layouts in Peco Code 100, I would simply cut up a secondhand turnout and use that. Worked well.

 

Add: Following on from David's post, I remember taking a layout to an exhibition in France that had a trap point protecting the run-round loop. Completely mystified the French as none of them had ever seen a real one. Mine was working (coupled up to the turnout on the running road) and came into its own several times during the weekend when operators forgot to set the road correctly.

Edited July 4, 2021 by Joseph_Pestell

[The Stationmaster]

8 hours ago, Pacific231G said:

 

. 

The design of this trap point looks odd compared with a typical British example because it includes a check rail (contre rail)  This is to prevent a derailed vehicle from departing from the track completely but instead to come to rest on the sleepers.  Either these were only used when they could be a long way back from the principal line being protected or any stray vehicle was assumed to be travelling very slowly so that it would come to rest almost immediately. I'm wondering though whether such an arrangement was ever used in Britain. 

 

 

The use of a piece of rail to prevent a 'trapped' vehicle going the wrong way and towards the line the trap point was protecting was not unusual in Britain.  However normally where considerable risk was present a double tongue trap point was used instead to ensure that the trapped vehicle at least went part of the distance in the right direction.

[Blinddog]

On 02/07/2021 at 19:33, Harlequin said:

 

Yes, you've got it exactly,

 

 

It looks neat and I think it works OK but let's see what the other knowledgeable people think.

 

The loop somewhat shortens the purely single track run to the branch station. You could make it shorter but I've hopefully shown it long enough to run round a train that is the full length pf P3. (So having arrived in P3 you'd set the train back up the branch line then uncouple the loco and run round using the loop and then shunt vehicles into the yard as required.)

 

The point about moving the station 50mm further left is to give room for a proper splay in the goods yard including room for a goods shed. It does push the carriage siding close to the back so you'd need a simple wall behind to disguise the proximity to the back-scene.

 

 

OK - making the changes to the goods yard was relatively simple. However your suggestion to make the two main lines parallel was an absolute [expletive]. Still I think I've managed it and I really think it looks a lot better, so it was worth it. The new siding off the loop is intended to hold a brake van (also as you suggested). I've also suggested a trap point off the carriage siding - I think I'll replace this with the actual PECO catch point if I can find one

 

Cheers

 

Phil

[Zomboid]

I'd reduce the length of the loop at the BLT. As it stands you'll have a real job on your hands to do anything there without shunting into the main terminus. If the loops good for 2 carriages or 5/6 goods vehicles then you'll probably find it's just as much fun.

[Harlequin]

29 minutes ago, Blinddog said:

OK - making the changes to the goods yard was relatively simple. However your suggestion to make the two main lines parallel was an absolute [expletive]. Still I think I've managed it and I really think it looks a lot better, so it was worth it. The new siding off the loop is intended to hold a brake van (also as you suggested). I've also suggested a trap point off the carriage siding - I think I'll replace this with the actual PECO catch point if I can find one

 

Cheers

 

Phil

 

Hi Phil, It's looking good! Two things, though... (sorry to nitpick):

 

I think Mike suggested spacing the branch line from the two main running lines rather than separating the loop from the branch. So the spacing would be, outbound close to inbound (as you have it), then a slightly wider gap, then branch close to loop.

 

The brakevan siding off the loop was Mike's suggestion but I think you have it facing the wrong way. The brake van is on the tail of inbound trains and so when a loco picks it off the tail of the train, the loco is to the north of the van. To deposit the van in the siding without needing another run round operation, or without the loco being trapped, the siding should thus have the buffers at the south end.

 

Edited July 6, 2021 by Harlequin

[Blinddog]

22 minutes ago, Zomboid said:

I'd reduce the length of the loop at the BLT. As it stands you'll have a real job on your hands to do anything there without shunting into the main terminus. If the loops good for 2 carriages or 5/6 goods vehicles then you'll probably find it's just as much fun.

I’ve sort of forgotten about the branch, but you’re right I’d end up shunting into the main terminus which is not my intent. I’ll try to fix it in the next version. Thanks

 

[Blinddog]

4 hours ago, Harlequin said:

 

Hi Phil, It's looking good! Two things, though... (sorry to nitpick):

 

I think Mike suggested spacing the branch line from the two main running lines rather than separating the loop from the branch. So the spacing would be, outbound close to inbound (as you have it), then a slightly wider gap, then branch close to loop.

 

The brakevan siding off the loop was Mike's suggestion but I think you have it facing the wrong way. The brake van is on the tail of inbound trains and so when a loco picks it off the tail of the train, the loco is to the north of the van. To deposit the van in the siding without needing another run round operation, or without the loco being trapped, the siding should thus have the buffers at the south end.

 

The brakevan siding i think i've fixed - it does introduce a bit of a wiggle as i'm trying to keep to the points i actually have rather than buy more, if I can. I had a layout planned, but it all changed once Covid hit and the space became where I had to work from. Its not just cost, they just seem to be out of stock everywhere  unless I pay silly $ for postage.

 

I'm reasonably certain Mike (Stationmaster?) was referring to the branch loop rather than the branch itself when he was talking about spacing from the running lines

 

4 hours ago, Zomboid said:

I'd reduce the length of the loop at the BLT. As it stands you'll have a real job on your hands to do anything there without shunting into the main terminus. If the loops good for 2 carriages or 5/6 goods vehicles then you'll probably find it's just as much fun.

 

I think this version is better for the BLT run round? I should be able to fit at least two coaches in the run round loop, or 5 or so wagons and the shunting will be well away from the main terminus. At least in this compressed version it will be

[The Stationmaster]

4 hours ago, Harlequin said:

 

Hi Phil, It's looking good! Two things, though... (sorry to nitpick):

 

I think Mike suggested spacing the branch line from the two main running lines rather than separating the loop from the branch. So the spacing would be, outbound close to inbound (as you have it), then a slightly wider gap, then branch close to loop.

 

The brakevan siding off the loop was Mike's suggestion but I think you have it facing the wrong way. The brake van is on the tail of inbound trains and so when a loco picks it off the tail of the train, the loco is to the north of the van. To deposit the van in the siding without needing another run round operation, or without the loco being trapped, the siding should thus have the buffers at the south end.

 

It should be loop from branch Phil although branch from other lines should be a 10 foot gap in any case.   

 

You are absolutely correct about the 'brakevan siding - it has been drawn the wrong way round as it would always be shunted from the branch terminus end of the loop (otherwise it means a double run round to take it off an arriving train)..

[The Stationmaster]

52 minutes ago, Blinddog said:

The brakevan siding i think i've fixed - it does introduce a bit of a wiggle as i'm trying to keep to the points i actually have rather than buy more, if I can. I had a layout planned, but it all changed once Covid hit and the space became where I had to work from. Its not just cost, they just seem to be out of stock everywhere  unless I pay silly $ for postage.

 

I'm reasonably certain Mike (Stationmaster?) was referring to the branch loop rather than the branch itself when he was talking about spacing from the running lines

 

 

I think this version is better for the BLT run round? I should be able to fit at least two coaches in the run round loop, or 5 or so wagons and the shunting will be well away from the main terminus. At least in this compressed version it will be

I'd be inclined to put the brake van siding on the opposite side of the loop line if you can make it fit.  Where you have now put it - the right way round - it would obstruct sight lines when shunting and anything run into itn a bit on the riough would stand a good chance of going through or over the stop block and fouling teh branch. .   The trap in the carriage siding looks to be a shade too close to the running lines.

[Harlequin]

Suggested arrangement of branch loop and van siding (just drawn on top):

 

The van siding could actually be a useful goods siding - you could locate an end-loading platform or cattle pens at the south end and still leave room for the brake van.

 

Edit: If you used a Large Y turnout for the carriage siding trap it wouldn't send the carriage siding curving so far out - you'd get a better curve. (That's a bit of a sledgehammer solution, though, just for a trap!)

 

Edited April 12, 2022 by Harlequin

[Blinddog]

12 hours ago, Harlequin said:

Suggested arrangement of branch loop and van siding (just drawn on top):

 

The van siding could actually be a useful goods siding - you could locate an end-loading platform or cattle pens at the south end and still leave room for the brake van.

 

Edit: If you used a Large Y turnout for the carriage siding trap it wouldn't send the carriage siding curving so far out - you'd get a better curve. (That's a bit of a sledgehammer solution, though, just for a trap!)

 

Thanks. I thinks that’s another improvement 

 

if a use the PECO catch point (which as far as I can work out are trap points rather than catch points), or modify a PECO short radius point (or even a Hornby one from the Thomas layout languishing in storage) that cuts down the curve as well

 

somewhere either inside that curve or between the turntable and running lines is where I plan to site the signal box. “Just” need to try to work out where the signals should be sited, how many levers are needed and thus the size of the box. Might take a while…

 

[5BarVT]

3 hours ago, Blinddog said:

if a use the PECO catch point (which as far as I can work out are trap points rather than catch points), or modify a PECO short radius point (or even a Hornby one from the Thomas layout languishing in storage) that cuts down the curve as well

Or use a right hand (SL91?) and use the straight leg as the run off.  It will align the siding more where you want it. 

Paul.

[Zomboid]

3 hours ago, Blinddog said:

somewhere either inside that curve or between the turntable and running lines is where I plan to site the signal box.

I'm sure there are examples of everything in the real world, but I would expect the box to be located somewhere that the signaller could get to the branch to hand over the token/ staff without crossing running lines. 

[TonyMay]

I think, by trying and failing to shoehorn it in, people are proving my point that the very silly branch line is actually very very silly indeed.

[The Stationmaster]

1 hour ago, Zomboid said:

I'm sure there are examples of everything in the real world, but I would expect the box to be located somewhere that the signaller could get to the branch to hand over the token/ staff without crossing running lines. 

So it could go in a wide interval between the branch and the loop if there is sufficient clearance (although it would obstruct shunting sightlines)

[The Stationmaster]

A quick count with one or two variables depending era of signalling being used (standards changed over the years so the guiding assumpotion always has to be the most recent date at which the lever frame - in particular - and signalling was renewed) -

 

6 or 7 black levers.   Note*

6 or 7 blue levers.    Note *

c.25/26 red levers

No yellow levers

No detonator placers

 

Total working levers 37 - 40 so therefore plus 4 spares levers or spaces.    Total length of lever frame =41 - 45 lever positions. which feels about right for that sort of layout.

 

Note *  I have assumed single ground discs only and stop signals to GWR placement methods which might look rather over -signalled.  The unfortunate part of all this is that - as I know all too well for my own plans there is no r-t-p or kit signal box for that size of frame currently available in 4mm scale.

[Phil Bullock]

17 minutes ago, The Stationmaster said:

A quick count with one or two variables depending era of signalling being used (standards changed over the years so the guiding assumpotion always has to be the most recent date at which the lever frame - in particular - and signalling was renewed) -

 

6 or 7 black levers.   Note*

6 or 7 blue levers.    Note *

c.25/26 red levers

No yellow levers

No detonator placers

 

Total working levers 37 - 40 so therefore plus 4 spares levers or spaces.    Total length of lever frame =41 - 45 lever positions. which feels about right for that sort of layout.

 

Note *  I have assumed single ground discs only and stop signals to GWR placement methods which might look rather over -signalled.  The unfortunate part of all this is that - as I know all too well for my own plans there is no r-t-p or kit signal box for that size of frame currently available in 4mm scale.

 

How many window bays would a box with a 45 lever frame have Mike?

[Harlequin]

6 hours ago, Blinddog said:

Thanks. I thinks that’s another improvement 

 

if a use the PECO catch point (which as far as I can work out are trap points rather than catch points), or modify a PECO short radius point (or even a Hornby one from the Thomas layout languishing in storage) that cuts down the curve as well

 

somewhere either inside that curve or between the turntable and running lines is where I plan to site the signal box. “Just” need to try to work out where the signals should be sited, how many levers are needed and thus the size of the box. Might take a while…

 

I think the box would work where you planned it (the wider curve of the carriage siding makes sense now!).

The signalman would only need a short walk on a boardway across the tracks to hand over or receive the token for the branch line and the box would have a good view of all the parts of the station it controls.

 

Edited July 7, 2021 by Harlequin

[The Stationmaster]

47 minutes ago, Phil Bullock said:

 

How many window bays would a box with a 45 lever frame have Mike?

Phil,

I'm fairly sure that with the standard Reading design of three panes above two it would be five, or possibly six,  full size windows - i.e. two normal size window frames between each upright.  But photos indicatet that single frame windows (between uprights) also existed in some builds and that would increase the total.

[Flying Pig]

7 hours ago, Blinddog said:

Edit: If you used a Large Y turnout for the carriage siding trap it wouldn't send the carriage siding curving so far out - you'd get a better curve. (That's a bit of a sledgehammer solution, though, just for a trap!)

 

 

That or a large right hand point would both give a much more natural flow to the track. 

[Blinddog]

1 hour ago, Flying Pig said:

 

That or a large right hand point would both give a much more natural flow to the track. 

That works well on paper and is a neat solution. I may need to modify the points to ensure decent running based on what i've read here and elsewhere, but that should be doable if needed 

Thanks