New layout advice

[Harlequin]

40 minutes ago, David Carpenter said:

This is my latest effort.

 

That looks like a much calmer railway!

 

The operating well is a good size and the baseboards are sensible widths.

 

The traverser has a problem in that it can't move any further outwards because of the wall. So the inner tracks can never be connected to the feed lines.

 

The line along the top is very close to the backscene. It will need a clever plan to disguise the join between the 3D model and the 2D backscene - and that plan will need to be ~9ft long!

 

Seems a shame to place the station platforms on a corner curve and leave the long top side largely unused. Gently curved platforms are great but tightly curved ones need quite large clearance for your typical 60-65ft coaches and the sawtooth gaps can look odd when a train is standing at the platform.

 

Do the dashed lines indicate lifting sections? They look slightly odd shapes but that may be an optical illusion.

 

[David Carpenter]

I realise track positions need refining. This is first go using some bits from researched layouts.

The dotted lines are crawl access under layout from doorways. Shown so framework can be designed.

I am open minded whether to keep station on corner. Should I keep single line at bottom or double up?

The fiddle yard may become static as is often the way. I just fancy building a moving one!!

[DavidB-AU]

A suggestion I'd make is to turn the goods shed 90 degrees and have the siding off a trailing point.

 

 

It would not be unrealistic to have platforms on both tracks here with the goods siding essentially as a pay platform.

 

You could also consider bringing all the station area closer to the operator and putting the village against the wall. This would make all the trackwork easier to reach, especially in the corners.

 

Cheers

David

[David Carpenter]

Thanks. both good points.

[BWsTrains]

17 hours ago, David Carpenter said:

I realise track positions need refining. This is first go using some bits from researched layouts.

The dotted lines are crawl access under layout from doorways. Shown so framework can be designed.

I am open minded whether to keep station on corner. Should I keep single line at bottom or double up?

The fiddle yard may become static as is often the way. I just fancy building a moving one!!

 

A few more comments.

 

1) Dimensions, the 2.1m x 1.5m disclosed on the plan suggests your grid matrix squares are 0.25m (am I reading this correctly?)

2) Curved platforms. totally agree with others' comments here.

You need very long radius curves to make a curved model platform sensible to the eye. One of the tightest mainline stations I know of is 250m radius full scale or 3.28m radius at 1:76 scale!  Your radius is ~0.6m which will give you an additional gap of ~13mm at each end of a standard coach (for your inside platform) - ~1m at full scale!

3)Traversers: If you can have 2 in /out lines separated by 1 line then the maximum required movement of the traverser is greatly reduced.

 

Edited July 15, 2021 by BWsTrains
addition

[David Carpenter]

The squares are 12". Agreeing with not having curved platform (don't fancy constructing the buildings on a curve).

[David Carpenter]

Am I any nearer?

[Harlequin]

It depends what you're trying to achieve but, sorry, probably not...

 

I'm not sure what all the loops are for...? The operating well has gotten smaller - too small now, really.

 

I would advise against a traverser fiddle yard in the main circuit. It's just too dangerous - too uncomfortable to have to be sure that it's reliably and correctly lined up while trains circulate. Best to keep things as simple as possible and I reckon there's room for a couple of points ladders to make traditional storage loops.

 

I've got a rough idea in my mind. I'll sketch it out and post it here, if that's OK?

 

[ITG]

The reach length diagonally in those corners will be pretty stretching, for all but quick’n’easy tasks.

Also worth thinking about where any control panels, banks of switches etc are going to be sited. They may intrude on central hole space. My first attempt (a couple of years ago) at an operating well was only 2’, with version 2 being 2’6” - makes a lot of difference to manoeuvrability, bending down to pick up dropped items etc.

 

My own personal experience was that it was all too easy for my enthusiasm to lead to me adding to locos and rolling stock….. result - I needed more storage and siding space. Half empty sidings in goods yards or carriage storage look better than crammed full ones.

Good luck whatever you decide, but take time on these early decisions. Ripping up paper or deleting track plans is so much easier than ripping up track and recutting baseboard timber!

 

[David Carpenter]

Thanks everyone again for comments and a sketch would be great Phil. As you can see I am struggling.

[DavidB-AU]

I agree the operating well is too small. Make it as big as possible and push any tracks as close to the walls as possible.

 

I don't see what the loop on the left does. It's not long enough to hold anything useful and just takes up space. 

 

I'd also agree against a traverser as a fiddle yard . The traditional ladder yard will be much easier to build. There is room for extra storage that will still be within reach. I'd recommend spacing storage tracks further apart than other running lines so 1:1 scale fingers can fit around the rollingstock.

 

 

 

[David Carpenter]

Thank you very much. I like it. Will see if I get any other suggestions. I must say I am amazed at how helpful every one is.

[Harlequin]

Here's my sketch idea:

 

It's just a simple country through station - nothing fancy (no engine shed!). It's actually based on Hermitage on the old DN&SR - exactly the sort of line that @DavidB-AU mentioned earlier.

• All Peco Streamline turnouts and crossings.
• Lots of room for scenery.
• ~760mm wide operating well.
• Make use of the top left doorway to allow wider baseboards here where they can be accessed from outside.
• R3 curves (505mm radius) at each end turn the track quickly in and out of the fiddle yard but they are hidden by scenery.
• All the visible curves in the scenic area are 710mm or greater.
• Platforms are ~1200mm long
• 4 storage loops (and one through loop). Each >1300mm long so long enough for a tender loco and 3 coaches easily. They are spaced 60mm between centres to give some finger room.

I assume you are OK with duck-unders so I haven't bothered with lifting sections. If you wanted a lifting section across the bottom doorway it would compromise the fiddle yard capacity.

 

Warning: This design relies on curved turnouts (green) and they need to be laid carefully to be reliable.

 

Edited April 12, 2022 by Harlequin

[David Carpenter]

Thanks Phil, hardly a "sketch". Thank you so much for the time you have put in (even the doors).

I do like the station at an angle, a little less formal.

I think "nothing fancy" suits me as a beginner.

I have quiet a lot of 2nd hand setrack, but am quiet prepared to go for steamline.

May I ask what you drew "sketch" in. As a former CAD draughtsman I am always interested.

[Harlequin]

2 hours ago, David Carpenter said:

Thanks Phil, hardly a "sketch". Thank you so much for the time you have put in (even the doors).

I do like the station at an angle, a little less formal.

I think "nothing fancy" suits me as a beginner.

I have quiet a lot of 2nd hand setrack, but am quiet prepared to go for steamline.

May I ask what you drew "sketch" in. As a former CAD draughtsman I am always interested.

 

The angle helps to use the space better and makes room for the yard behind. (The platforms are slightly curved, BTW.)

 

It is a much simpler station trackplan than your previous drawings and that should be better for a beginner, especially if you like the scenic aspects. The movements to drop off and pick up wagons should be very entertaining even in a relatively simple plan like this, but it is quite different than the plans you were drawing so make sure it really will do enough for you. (There are some possibilities to add more trackwork.)

 

Good idea to abandon the old Settrack! I don't think it would do you any favours in the long term. Streamline will make everything smoother, more reliable and more realistic. You can use Code75 track to get a more accurate to scale rail profile.

 

I use Xara Designer Pro+, a drawing program. (I work for Xara.)

 

I'll develop this design a bit more, if you don't mind. I'd like to show how I imagine the scenery could work: where buildings, embankments and cuttings might be placed. I think I can give you a bridge over a river as well!

 

Let me know if there's anything wrong or missing that you'd really like to see changed/added/removed.

 

Edited July 16, 2021 by Harlequin

[David Carpenter]

Phil, don't let me stop you. More ideas the better. River/canal a particular favourite.

[Chimer]

Very nice Phil.  My only thought is that the loco of a clockwise freight will be in the right-hand tunnel before the brake van clears the point that allows it to set back into the yard.  I've sometimes wondered for my own designs if that's allowed / workable in the real world .... doubtless somebody knows.  Personally, I'd want a third siding in the yard , but can see that would cramp things a bit.  And I take it that's a diamond, not a slip, in the right-hand throat?

 

For David, curved platforms are a doddle (i.e. even I can make them) using the Metcalfe kits.

[Harlequin]

19 minutes ago, Chimer said:

Very nice Phil. 

Thanks!

 

19 minutes ago, Chimer said:

My only thought is that the loco of a clockwise freight will be in the right-hand tunnel before the brake van clears the point that allows it to set back into the yard. I've sometimes wondered for my own designs if that's allowed / workable in the real world .... doubtless somebody knows. 

I'm sure it's acceptable so long as the driver has some way to know when he's cleared the points.

Actually, I didn't like having two tunnels as scenic breaks and so I'm going to change that end to just use trees to disguise the sharp curve and the exit. Problem solved!

 

19 minutes ago, Chimer said:

Personally, I'd want a third siding in the yard , but can see that would cramp things a bit.  And I take it that's a diamond, not a slip, in the right-hand throat?

Yes it's a simple diamond. I haven't got a signalling diagram for Hermitage but other stations on the line seem to use diamonds in equivalent positions - at least while the line was single track. When a lot of it was doubled during WW2 the passing loops disappeared of course and those crossings did then gain trailing slips.

 

Very difficult to fit another siding in the yard without compromising lots of other things. But it might be possible to add a short horse loading dock trailing on the other side of the loop. That would be very realistic for this line - lots of horsey traffic.

 

19 minutes ago, Chimer said:

 

For David, curved platforms are a doddle (i.e. even I can make them) using the Metcalfe kits.

[Flying Pig]

A signal plan for Hermitage, post WW2 doubling, but still showing the arrangement of the goods yard:

 

https://www.s-r-s.org.uk/html/gwa/S205.htm

 

And here's Highclere on the southern section of the line dated 1917:

 

https://www.s-r-s.org.uk/html/gwa/T3010.htm

 

The adjacent boxes in the Burghclere direction show an interesting set of variations on the theme.

 

Edit: interesting article on the line: http://www.gwr.org.uk/nodns.html

Edited July 16, 2021 by Flying Pig

[Flying Pig]

If you have a spare moment and nothing beter to do, Phil, I can't help feeling that the plan might work better with the sidings on the inside, if the OP could live with the platforms being at least partly curved.  Effectively the same station but rotated 180°.  

[Chimer]

16 hours ago, Harlequin said:

I'm sure it's acceptable so long as the driver has some way to know when he's cleared the points.

 

That was my point of wonder, back in the steam age with no radios.  He'd also need to know that the points had been changed .....

[Zomboid]

Highclere seems reminiscent of the stations on the Meon Valley, though I think those were a little more extravagant.

Edited July 17, 2021 by Zomboid

[The Johnster]

Some of the questions about drivers being able to see when the rear of their train is clear of points or junctions raise the issue of sightlines in shunting.  Shunting movements at small passing stations like this are usually directed by the pickup guard, who has to be in a position from which the driver can see him in order to give handsignals.  Time for him to walk to this position from the last point he threw or wagon he coupled/uncoupled should be allowed and the sightlines respected for perfect scale operation, but frequently aren't and on some layouts the sightlines would make shunting very awkward indeed; this is one of the things that come under the 'neccessary compromise' heading IMHO.

 

Knowing how far he needed to go with a given length of train to clear points was part of a driver's road knowledge, and most of them had their own forms of markers (trees, telegraph posts, something on the lineside) to help them.  Once at the mark, you stopped until the guard caught up with the action and you could see each other, at which point he called you back, from anything up to 60 wagons away though usually much less on a pickup working.  He then had to try to maintain a position in which he could be both seen by you and could himself see the 'leading' wagon of the shunt, so the move would take place fairly slowly.  The signalman would of course have a part to play in such of these proceedings that took place on running lines, and a lot of this sort of work relied on the sort of apparent psychic ability for the staff to communicate with other that comes from intimate familiarity with the job in hand and the people doing it.

 

The question occasionally arises as to what is a realistic shunting speed, and the answer is that this varies; goods yard shunting of this sort was done mostly at walking pace, but larger yards and marshalling sidings that were more mob handed with shunters on the ground passing handsignals, changing points, coupling and uncoupling might up the pace somewhat, and marshalling yard loose shunting was a knockabout affair accompanied by loud collisions and clouds of dust, actually a very skilled job for fit and agile shunters.  OTOH, propelling into a goods shed or mileage road where men may be working in vans or wagons out of sight of both driver and shunter was necessarily done with extreme caution at very slow speed.

[Harlequin]

On 17/07/2021 at 08:03, Chimer said:

 

That was my point of wonder, back in the steam age with no radios.  He'd also need to know that the points had been changed .....

Coincidentally I came across this relevant passage in a book about the DN&SR today:

 

It's talking about Winchester station, where the platforms are directly outside a tunnel portal and northbound LSWR locos were changed for GWR locos:

Quote

The LSWR loco [would] leave its train in the platform and run forward, with a red tail lamp, into the tunnel well clear of the loop. The locomotive was then held here whilst the GWR loco, which had been waiting in the down platform, followed it into the tunnel and also cleared the end of the loop before running back onto the train. When the GWR loco was safely on the front of the train the LSWR loco, much to the relief of its crew, came out of the tunnel into the daylight.

 

[Snip] 

 

These movements took place out of sight from the signal-box and communication between the shunter and the signalman was by means of an electric bell fixed on the down home signal post.

 

[Snip]

 

This delicate movement was under the strict supervision of the shunter and was further complicated when the GWR engine had vehicles in tow to be attached to the front of the train.

 

 

So, a shunter was at the tunnel mouth with flag and/or lamp coordinating the process.

 

Edited July 18, 2021 by Harlequin

[Harlequin]

Here's a more developed version, then:

 

I left some of the scenery blank. It could be farmland, grassland, wooded or maybe have some more buildings - depends on the feel you want to get.

 

I had great fun drawing this and I will add it to my track plans album. Use as much or as little of it as you want. I can send you a PDF if you're interested.

 

Edited April 12, 2022 by Harlequin