Jump to content
 

Large station (Working name - Wakefield West-Kirk) Track plan Help


spackz
 Share

Recommended Posts

Good Evening Gents,

 

I'm currently converting my garage into a more comfortable hobby space, working with approx 18.5ft by 9ft after insulation boards have gone in. The main scenic area being 3.5ft by 18.5ft, the fiddle yard/mpd boards will be 10cm higher to allow me to build into embankments, canal, under passes etc. Set in the late 50's early 60s,  I'm trying to create a four through road station, with Walthers milwaukee station building being the centre piece, on a raised embankment style station, surrounded by a large town. I'll be using the two walthers canopies (marked in red dashed lines) to cover the four roads. Loosely based on stations such as Huddersfield, Wakefield and Nottingham. I can't decide whether to have a canal (marked in blue) along the main scenic area or were the left hand station approach is.  I'm struggling to get a nice smooth station throat when using anyrail so got frustrated, any one able to offer some expertise/advice on incorporating these things? Thanks In advance.

 

Regards

 

Paul

draft one.PNG

Link to post
Share on other sites

You should get a decent representation of Wakefield Westgate with both up and downs sidings in the pre electrification layout using Code 55 pointwork in the space you have. If you have the misfortune to model 00 and forgot to say then I would suggest moving the turntable to the MPD and carying round the 4 tracks round the left corner and have the crossover on the left hand canal  bridge.  This should give a more even curve.   

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

There doesn't seem much point to the pointwork in the station, its horribly complicated and doesn't really do anything useful.

The outer line presumably is a branch, very unlikely to find such at a big station, the cost of land was usually too high for branches to diverge in a town centre so the branch trains ran up the main line to the outskirts and then diverged.  Edinburgh Waverley was an exception with two through suburban platforms (21 and 22?) 18 dad ends and two main line trough platforms 1 and 20(?)  but branches o one side of a through station is not something I am aware of in British Practice.

I would simplify the layout maybe add some bays and change engines a la Leicester, where all sorts of passenger trains changed engines including GW locos on trains off the GWR and also GW locos with Southern stock on Poole York and similar trains.

Screenshot (412)a.png

  • Agree 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the replies so far, yes it's oo gauge. Your probably right about simplifying the track area in the station vicinity, was inspired by the setup at Nottingham midland. I might almost mirror the left hand side of the layout to what's on the right creating differing scenic breaks.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

Hi Paul,

The station baseboard seems to be over 3ft 6in wide. Are you sure you can reach that far comfortably to do work at the back?

I hope you really intend to have smooth flowing curves around the ends instead of those horrible kinks on the left? Are they just due to problems in AnyRail?

You've used curved turnouts to turn the mainline at the left end of the platforms loops but you could go further - use more of them, and the curved route through straight turnouts, to build the station throat more on the curve.

Are the platform loops long enough? It depends what sort of trains you want to run.

(It would make sense if the branch line joined the main line with a double junction on the right.)

 

Have a look at "Alternate North Road" in my album to see a broadly similar plan - a OO multi-platform through station in a garage with curved throat pointwork.

 

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, Harlequin said:

Hi Paul,

The station baseboard seems to be over 3ft 6in wide. Are you sure you can reach that far comfortably to do work at the back?

I hope you really intend to have smooth flowing curves around the ends instead of those horrible kinks on the left? Are they just due to problems in AnyRail?

You've used curved turnouts to turn the mainline at the left end of the platforms loops but you could go further - use more of them, and the curved route through straight turnouts, to build the station throat more on the curve.

Are the platform loops long enough? It depends what sort of trains you want to run.

(It would make sense if the branch line joined the main line with a double junction on the right.)

 

Have a look at "Alternate North Road" in my album to see a broadly similar plan - a OO multi-platform through station in a garage with curved throat pointwork.

 

Harlequin,

 

Yes, was my first time using anyrail, the kinks being due me over stretching the track. I'm usually better just laying points and track physically in place and testing and adjusting, but as the garage isn't finished wanted to get some ideas on paper. You got a link to your plans?

 

Thanks Paul

Link to post
Share on other sites

The mid station crossovers make sense when you have very long platforms, (and you don't)  I don't know Nottingham Midland,  but Snow Hill, Newton Abbott, BR rebuilt Gloucester etc had them and they made it possible for two trains to use the same platform and made combining portions of trains much easier, but to be any real use in 00 you are looking at 11ft platforms for combining 2 X 5 coach trains. The MO may well be train A arrives in near end .  Train B arrives passing train A to arrive in the far end, Loco from train A escapes via crossover and two portions close up, Often the train B loco is also replaced.  Probably takes 20 minutes by which time grand dads Austin A 30 is ten miles down the road.   I have a mid station crossover on an 8 ft platform but it just lets me have a two coach and a three coach local in the same platform.

  • Agree 2
  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
34 minutes ago, spackz said:

Harlequin,

 

 You got a link to your plans?

 

Thanks Paul

 

At the bottom of his post, cunningly labelled "Harlequin's Track Plans" :)

  • Thanks 1
  • Funny 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Harlequin said:

Hi Paul,

The station baseboard seems to be over 3ft 6in wide. Are you sure you can reach that far comfortably to do work at the back?

I hope you really intend to have smooth flowing curves around the ends instead of those horrible kinks on the left? Are they just due to problems in AnyRail?

You've used curved turnouts to turn the mainline at the left end of the platforms loops but you could go further - use more of them, and the curved route through straight turnouts, to build the station throat more on the curve.

Are the platform loops long enough? It depends what sort of trains you want to run.

(It would make sense if the branch line joined the main line with a double junction on the right.)

 

Have a look at "Alternate North Road" in my album to see a broadly similar plan - a OO multi-platform through station in a garage with curved throat pointwork.

 

Found your plans, had to be on laptop. Surprisingly enough your plan for clagsniffer is one I've seen before and was close to copying, I obviously just need to tweek it to my requirements. Thanks

Link to post
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, DavidCBroad said:

but branches o one side of a through station is not something I am aware of in British Practice.

Hmm, Cardiff Central is just such a place - 4 platform faces on 2 islands for the main line (+originally a bay facing west) and then 2 platform faces for what are today called "the Valley Lines". The constraint that forced this arrangement was the north-south alignment of the Taff Vale/Rhymney lines serving the docks and the valleys via Queen Street station in contrast with the east-west alignment of the GWR South Wales main line. 

 

Going east out of Cardiff Central, the two tracks from the Valley Lines platforms rise steeply and then swing north over the top of the main line to reach Queen Street station.

 

Cardiff Central also has the two through tracks between the main line platforms as in the OP's initial plan - heavily used by the many goods trains that used to ply the main line.

 

Yours,  Mike.

 

P.S. I'l correct myself with updated information. In very recent years, as passenger services have expanded (!) two extra platforms have been added at Cardiff Central - Platform 0 on the north side and Platform 8 on the south side. Platform 0 is for Ebbw Vale services which go via the main line as far as Newport and Platform 8 handles some of the "Valley" services. This website might help give folks an idea of how things are arranged, although I find it a bit "busy":

 

https://raildar.co.uk/map/CDF

Edited by KingEdwardII
  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

If the 3'6" wide board is critical to what you want to do, you might consider leaving a narrow gap (perhaps 18", dependent on your personal dimensions :)) between the garage wall and the top of the layout, at the cost of a narrower central operating well?

 

Are we right in seeing the two lines above the main station as a branch making its way independently round to the fiddle yard at the bottom, and are either of those lines served by a platform?

 

Ans as DCB has suggested, we really need to know what you want to do with passenger trains in the station (reverse, split, combine etc) before we can help much with pointwork.  I would suggest the best placing for crossovers between up and down lines is usually at the station limits - i.e. the first pointwork encountered on approaching the station from either direction - with both trailing.  I feel that gives maximum operational flexibility.  

  • Agree 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Chimer said:

If the 3'6" wide board is critical to what you want to do, you might consider leaving a narrow gap (perhaps 18", dependent on your personal dimensions :)) between the garage wall and the top of the layout, at the cost of a narrower central operating well?

 

Are we right in seeing the two lines above the main station as a branch making its way independently round to the fiddle yard at the bottom, and are either of those lines served by a platform?

 

Ans as DCB has suggested, we really need to know what you want to do with passenger trains in the station (reverse, split, combine etc) before we can help much with pointwork.  I would suggest the best placing for crossovers between up and down lines is usually at the station limits - i.e. the first pointwork encountered on approaching the station from either direction - with both trailing.  I feel that gives maximum operational flexibility.  

I think I'm going to revisit again tonight. The left hand side has a lot of wasted space, so going to pull the station approach that side up level with the rest of the station through roads, scrapping the branch line. If that doesn't work, I'll go for a modded version of Harlequin's  "Alternate North Road" plan.

  • Friendly/supportive 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm much happier with the latest iteration now, just needs some tweaks. Need to decide where the roads and canals go so the road naturally leads to the station frontage and/or goods area.  Ran out of my 50 piece limit on Anyrail so couldn't finish everything. What are peoples thoughts, better? Added too much?

 

 

Wakefield Draft2.PNG

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

Hi Paul,

I see a lot of the same issues that were raised above and some new ones:

  • Crossovers between platforms that aren't really useful.
  • Throat pointwork all on the straight so not making best use of the space.
  • Scissors crossover that is difficult to build using OO Peco Streamline parts (at least, at that track spacing).
  • No crossovers outside the station loops where you really need them.
  • Goods yard facing when it should be trailing.
  • The line from the Goods yard down to the outer mainline is a bit "lumpy" - partly because the connection to the main line is a small Y, I think(?).
  • Baseboards still 3ft 6in wide and the reach into the corners will of course be longer. Too wide to be practical, I suggest.

 

  • Like 1
  • Agree 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Harlequin said:

Hi Paul,

I see a lot of the same issues that were raised above and some new ones:

  • Crossovers between platforms that aren't really useful.
  • Throat pointwork all on the straight so not making best use of the space.
  • Scissors crossover that is difficult to build using OO Peco Streamline parts (at least, at that track spacing).
  • No crossovers outside the station loops where you really need them.
  • Goods yard facing when it should be trailing.
  • The line from the Goods yard down to the outer mainline is a bit "lumpy" - partly because the connection to the main line is a small Y, I think(?).
  • Baseboards still 3ft 6in wide and the reach into the corners will of course be longer. Too wide to be practical, I suggest.

 

Ok I'll probably change tact and go for a modified version of your plan. Was nice to have a go myself but I'm a bit of a right angles man hehe :-).

I keep using the crossover as I have shinohara scissors from a previous layout and due to their price wanted to incorporate them. At least using your plan I know the size and shapes of baseboards required and can still have the station raised on an embankment.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
10 minutes ago, spackz said:

shinohara scissors from a previous layout and due to their price wanted to incorporate them.

Ah, I see! Fair enough, then.

 

It still might be possible to work them in. They could be used to replace two conventional crossovers in sequence - and save some space in doing so.

 

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
2 hours ago, Harlequin said:

Ah, I see! Fair enough, then.

 

It still might be possible to work them in. They could be used to replace two conventional crossovers in sequence - and save some space in doing so.

 

I think the scissors would be far more useful up in the area of the 'outside' platform and freight facilities.  Where it currently is it serves no operational value that I can see and I do seriously wonder what will happen when you apply the 'acid test' of applying signalling to the layout plan.   (It's always a good idea to try to signal a track layout as you develop it as that will show up just how practical it is - or isn't.)  

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
26 minutes ago, The Stationmaster said:

I think the scissors would be far more useful up in the area of the 'outside' platform and freight facilities.  Where it currently is it serves no operational value that I can see and I do seriously wonder what will happen when you apply the 'acid test' of applying signalling to the layout plan.   (It's always a good idea to try to signal a track layout as you develop it as that will show up just how practical it is - or isn't.)  

 

A scissors crossover between up and down lines will always be iffy as half of it is facing.  Works OK in a terminus or fiddle yard throat, but not in a through station imho, except perhaps  between two up or two down roads, facilitating the joining trains manoeuvre DCB described.

 

Obviously cost is always a factor, but it's probably not great to feel too constrained by what you've spent money on in the past.  I suspect your station design may also be being influenced by you already having the Walthers "Milwaukee" station?

 

On the practical side on your last plan, a derailment on the points complex leading into the goods yard would be an absolute nightmare to resolve, trying to reach something over 3 feet away and the far side of a station's overall roof .....

 

Trying to be helpful (but probably failing).

  • Like 2
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, The Stationmaster said:

I think the scissors would be far more useful up in the area of the 'outside' platform and freight facilities.  Where it currently is it serves no operational value that I can see and I do seriously wonder what will happen when you apply the 'acid test' of applying signalling to the layout plan.   (It's always a good idea to try to signal a track layout as you develop it as that will show up just how practical it is - or isn't.)  

Signalling? What's that :-)? This is where my lack of knowledge shows I'm afraid, I'll place signals where they're meant to be but won't be operational. Layout is for me to enjoy running trains, so operationally it may not be truly authentic, but I still want it to look right and track work flow nicely.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Chimer said:

 

A scissors crossover between up and down lines will always be iffy as half of it is facing.  Works OK in a terminus or fiddle yard throat, but not in a through station imho, except perhaps  between two up or two down roads, facilitating the joining trains manoeuvre DCB described.

 

Obviously cost is always a factor, but it's probably not great to feel too constrained by what you've spent money on in the past.  I suspect your station design may also be being influenced by you already having the Walthers "Milwaukee" station?

 

On the practical side on your last plan, a derailment on the points complex leading into the goods yard would be an absolute nightmare to resolve, trying to reach something over 3 feet away and the far side of a station's overall roof .....

 

Trying to be helpful (but probably failing).

All helpful information that I will take on board, definitely verging on using Harlequin's plan modified to my taste now.

Link to post
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Chimer said:

scissors crossover between up and down lines will always be iffy as half of it is facing

Well, I would tend to agree, but then, blow me down, this evening I was researching something else entirely and I came across a full blown scissors crossover in an out of the way place called Congresbury on the Cheddar Valley line in Somerset.

 

Congresbury is a junction between two single lines and the GWR in their wisdom had the scissors as the first connection between the two single lines as they approach the station from the south. In that location, 3 of the points would be "facing" with respect to passenger train movements. 

 

"Every rule has its exceptions"!

 

Yours,  Mike.

  • Like 1
  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

It's an interesting argument, but (if I've interpreted the situation you describe correctly) of the three points in that scissors you could define as "facing", one is simply a divergence of routes and the other two are effectively on single track routes, where every point is unavoidably facing for all the traffic going one way or the other.  There aren't any crossovers between up and down lines as such.

 

Sorry for the thread diversion spackz :) 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Were goods sheds really right at the very end of sidings?

I have not seen a great deal of plans for old stations but, on all those I have, the shed is not at the end of the siding.

It seems typical to put sheds at the end of sidings on layouts but it looks operationally wrong to me because only the end 1 or 2 wagons can fit in the shed (after you've removed the brake van). The train has to be completely re-shunted to get at the rest, which is a lot of work easily avoided if the shed was a little further along the siding; it would then just be a matter of pushing/pulling the train along a little to get to the next ones.

Railways were built as they are(were) for a reason & my view is that squeezing sheds at the end of sidings is a modelling compromise for the sake of compression.

  • Agree 2
  • Informative/Useful 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...