OO branchline in 8'x6'

[Coder Tim]

Hi all,

 

Various life events scuppered my previous layout plans but I now have access to an 8’ x 6’ room which can be mostly given over to a railway (with general storage below it).  I’ve come up with a plan and would like a general sanity check and any suggestions for improvements are more than welcome.  I’ve had a think about things I want from this layout:

 

A representation of a railway system, not just a single location

Lots of varied operation, I like to have things to do but timetabled operation doesn’t really interest me

A sense of trains going somewhere, this is why the branch line loops back on itself instead of going around the wall

4mm scale, I’ve tried n and I don’t have the dexterity for it

 

Compromises I’m willing to accept to achieve this in the space available:

 

Train-set curves

Short trains

 

The general plan is to model a branch somewhere in the West-Riding in LMS years, with a hint of the West Highland Line mixed in.  The branch diverges at Hellydale, heads through the passing station at Xenasholme (named for our cat) then proceeds to the small station of Timsden on one leg of a hidden return loop.  After passing through this loop the train calls at Xenasholme’, which is the same physical location as Xenasholme but represents a station further down the branch.  The same principle is used to double up Hellydale as Hellydale’, the junction station where the branch re-joins the main line.  The premise is that the branch takes a meandering route along the coast (ignoring that the West Riding was landlocked) via some small towns/villages while the main line takes a faster inland route.

 

 

The plan was drawn in Templot then traced over in Inkscape so I’m confident it will fit the space.  It’s going to be oo-sf and whilst the radii get down to R2 in some places anywhere that will involve propelling is fairly gently curved.  Whilst on practical matters I am a little concerned about the reach into the top right corner, not sure what I can do about that.

 

I haven’t built a proper schedule diagram yet but I have an idea of the sorts of trains and activities the layout will host:

 

Branch train – a couple of coaches and sometimes a tail load, runs to the end of the branch and back a few times a day

Tourist train – arrives from the main in the morning, detaches sleeper coaches, attaches observation car, runs up the branch, detaches observation car and continues up the main.  Repeats in reverse in the evening

Branch goods – picks up wagons for the branch at Hellydale, heads up the branch depositing those wagons and picking up ones to move to the wider network or other stations on the branch.  Turns at Hellydale’ and returns to Helllydale where it deposits any wagons for the wider network.  Timsden’s main purpose is to have a station that can only be shunted in one direction

Main line goods – arrives at Hellydale off the main, deposits wagons for the branch, then proceeds along the main.  Returns at night and picks up any wagons leaving the branch

Coal train – as above, but only coal

Main line passenger train - various options here, can stop at Hellydale or not, can detach a through coach for the branch or not

 

Hopefully this gives a sense of what I’m trying to achieve, any thoughts or suggestions would be gratefully received.

 

Best wishes,

 

Tim

[Kris]

That scissor crossing looks fearsome to build.

[DCB]

I think its too tight if you are going for 21st century OO and OOSF.  There are quite a number of Modern RTR Locos which aren't happy on R2, the old split chassis locos and those with no centre flanges are generally fine but the wiper pick up chassis with centre flanges and small flanges are a different matter. My layout has one R3 curve on which quite a number of locos struggle and that's Code 100.   It would be fine with older stock.    The scissors looks quite out of context with the rest of the layout and there is no way for branch and sub branch trains to arrive together, which is the normal thing at these junctions. Three branch trains arriving together and nothing at all for the next three hours isn't unusual at single line Junctions . 3 platforms would make things easier.

I would push the stations nearer to wall to reduce the stretch,  The traverser is a great idea.  Or Train lift to Low level FY  might be cheaper and more reliable if it only has to lift one train at a time. I'm planning a 8ft long one .   Add some storage to the return loops but you will need some sophisticated construction to allow access to the Low level return loops probably from below with lighting when you get derailments.

[Chimer]

Can you get the drop you need on the branch through Xenasholme?  The thought of putting the whole length (including two removable sections and some complicated pointwork) on a gradient would give me sleepless nights, but if you put Xenasholme on the level, you've not got much plain track left either side of the station to achieve a 3" (minimum) fall.

 

But I do like the idea and the ambition ...... 

[Coder Tim]

Thanks all, I've made some fairly significant changes, here's attempt 2:

 

 

The biggest change is removing the scissors, I agree it didn't look right.  I've also removed the carriage siding and replaced it with a third platform which can also be used to store coaches, similar to the arrangement at Fort William.  The curves are now R3 minimum everywhere except the loop back on the branch, I just can't make that fit at anything above R3, I'm hoping the fact the largest loco on it will be a Mogul should help.  Instead of the hidden return loop the branch now joins back to the main which avoids a lot of gradients and access issues but reduces the branch length, it feels like a good trade to me.  Finally it's still called a Vertical Traverser but I'm considering making it a train lift as suggested by DCB, either way it will have the same footprint.

 

What does everyone think?  Better or worse?

Edited December 29, 2021 by Coder Tim

[Dragonfly]

Could you possibly draw this with the full width of the track demonstrated? Or at least with the track lines being drawn 16.5mm (or more, ideally) thick?

 

When it's shown as a single thin line, it's difficult to get a feel for how it all really fits, and if there's adequate clearance between tracks, wide enough platforms, etc.

[Coder Tim]

Here's the detail view from Templot:

 

 

The double track sections through Hellydale and Xenasholme have a 6' way which will probably need increasing, and the platforms are 12' wide.  The island platform at Hellydale pinches more than I would like but there's plenty of slack for fettling once I'm happy with the overall scheme.

[ITG]

I too have a similarly restricted (albeit slightly bigger at 11’ x 6’6”) space, into which I know I have made compromises similar to yours. Just one comment - if you intend to shunt the goods roads whilst running simultaneous through trains, there isn’t a lot of  space to do so without fouling the line to Timsden. A possible solution would be to change the catch point at the top to a headshunt, although space looks very tight to do so.

Edited December 30, 2021 by ITG

[Kris]

I think this less complex plan is far better. It feels far less crowded. 

[Chimer]

Having worried about the gradients on your first plan, it seems a bit perverse to now suggest that if you could get Xenasholme maybe as little as an inch lower than Hellydale the top left corner  would look better - but I'll suggest it anyway!

[Zomboid]

Reminds me a bit of Halwill Junction (minus the Torrington line). There, the main line was towards Bude, and the access to/from the North Cornwall (Padstow) line bay didn't conflict with it.

 

If you just add a direct line from the bay platform to the branch you can provide that functionality.

[KingEdwardII]

On 30/12/2021 at 12:08, Coder Tim said:

The island platform at Hellydale pinches more than I would like

I'd consider fixing that by moving it's turnout further to the right. This probably either means moving the pair of crossovers to the right or moving them further apart enough to get the turnout for the bay in between them.

 

Yours, Mike.

[RJS1977]

Looking at the second plan, here are a few comments of my own:

 

1) There would probably be more room for the coaling stage if it was placed above the turntable road, rather than below it, where clearances look tight.

 

2) Goods trains coming out of the yard at Hellydale can't take the branch down towards Xenasholme - I'd consider swapping over the two crossovers on the main line to allow this.

 

3) All trains coming off the branch are going to need reversing at some stage (or you'll end up with them all facing the same way and unable to use the branch again), which means running round in the station. Whilst in principle there's nothing wrong with doing this, the time spent running round will preclude anything circulating on the main line whilst this goes on. Possibly consider making the 'transfer siding' and 'local goods' into a run-round loop and adding an extra goods siding in the gap alongside the engine shed (indeed the engine shed could be placed off the turntable a la Swanage, with the shed siding given over to goods).

 

4) Timsden station platform would more likely be between the main line and the branch, allowing main line trains to call there, rather than just tucked on the branch. As it's a less important station than Hellydale, not as many main line trains would stop there, adding more variety to the operating pattern.

 

5) You might well want an access hole where Timsden station was in the original plan, to aid access to the points at the back of the layout. Also consider whether you can reach into the corner where the turntable is.

 

 

[Coder Tim]

Lots of good feedback here, thanks.

 

@ITG You're right, I can't shunt Timsden without blocking the branch line.  I think with it being such a small station it would be one engine in steam.  I can keep things circulating on the main if I want and its main purposes are to have variety of destinations and somewhere that can only be shunted in one direction.

 

@Kris Thanks, I also like the greater sense of space in the simpler plan.

 

@Chimer Yeah, the visual separation of having Xenasholme a little lower than Hellydale should make a big difference, I think I can get an inch with 1:50 without encroaching on the removable sections or anything other than plain track.  If some of the trains have to be double-headed to manage that's not actually a bad thing.

 

@Zomboid The link line is an interesting suggestion, it's something I've added to minories based plans in the past but I'm not sure if it would be overkill for such a small station.  I think one question to answer here would be whether the through platforms are bidirectional?  If they are and I change the order of the crossovers then even without the link any combination of simultaneous arrivals and/or departures is possible if the station is empty and platforms can be chosen to suit.  If there is a distinct arrival and departure platform then the link would allow simultaneous moves that the current arrangement doesn't.

 

@KingEdwardII Yes, I'll have to shuffle that point to the right, as I mentioned to Zomboid above I think I need to reverse the order of the crossovers and this would create the space to move the turnout.

 

@RJS1977 Thanks for the thoughts, in order:

1) Good spot, I agree and will move it

2) Thanks for the suggestion to swap the crossovers, as mentioned above that solves a couple of other issues so I'm going to do it.  Unfortunately I won't be able to squeeze the goods yard turnout in between them anymore so a goods still won't directly be able to take the branch, it will have to set back into the platforms first.  At least it will give me something interesting to do.

3) Yes, everything off the branch will have to reverse (unless it's proceeding down the main to the traverser).  I don't mind having to do that in the station itself, I think this is the kind of place that would have a very busy period followed by not much happening and these moves can probably fit into the quiet periods, another alternative being to use turnover engines as in Fort William.  To add a dedicated run-around would mean two extra goods sidings and I don't think I can fit that in.

4) I wasn't imagining Timsden being on the main line at all, I would consider putting the main behind the backscene at that point although it would make approaching the traverser a bit tricky.

5) Access under the scenery where Timsden used to be is a really good idea, thanks, I'll definitely do that.  The reach into the corner with Xenasholme removed is about 2 feet which I think will be ok, with Xenasholme in place it would be too much, hopefully it won't be required too regularly.

 

Thanks again everyone, I'm going to start thinking about singaling, interlocking and block sections as well as implementing what's been suggested so far.

[Zomboid]

Hopefully direct linking is possible; here's Halwill signal box

 

https://www.s-r-s.org.uk/html/srq/S3591.htm

 

Okehampton to the left, off to the top right is Padstow, Middle right is Bude and bottom right is Torrington

Edited December 31, 2021 by Zomboid

[RobinofLoxley]

Access is partly a function of where the supports and bracing are on the baseboards - removing bracing weakens the structure of course. You have to cut a hole in the board at the design stage and see what can be reached through the hole. I had a feature in my previous layout that had to be reached through a porthole and it was really difficult to do.

[RJS1977]

Yes, access holes should be designed in from the get-go, not cut in as an afterthought. In your case, I would have expected the siding at Xenasholme to be on a completely separate baseboard to the Hellydale throat, with the access space simply being an area with no baseboard in it (though you could add a removable scenic cover later if you wanted to).

 

In fact, looking at the Templot plan, I'd be tempted to bring the access hole as far round behind Xenasholme if you can (potentially with the station building moved closer to Hellydale) to improve access to the turntable corner of the layout without having to remove Xenasholme (remember that a mis-aligned turntable is a potential cause of derailments).

Edited January 1, 2022 by RJS1977

[simmo009]

Your second iteration has a better flow, and is proof that 'less is more'. Plenty of variety in a smallish area, nicely done  sir.

[Aire Head]

Can you actually reach the corner where the turntable is?

 

It looks too far back and if anything goes wrong there your scuppered

[Lacathedrale]

I totally understand the struggle of wanting to have a station and a branch in a small space, but I still feel that Hellydale is a little on the large side. I appreciate it's likely a function of the minimum radius pushing the station to the middle and a desire to fill out what's behind, though. I might be inclined to remove the transfer sidings and continue the arc of the turnouts leading to the turntable as a continuous line rather than with the S-curve. Flipping the ex carriage road end over so it protrudes into the teadrop would narrow Hellydale somewhat and provide scope for either the transfer sidings or a small industry such as a gasworks.

 

Additionally, were I you, I would flip the siding at Timsdale to the other end of the platform and make that entire top-right corner 'hidden' to obfuscate the reconnection of the branch to the main, and that the outer track is a simple loop. The aforementioned 'new' industry in the teardrop could be extended to mask the 90 degree turn in that side of the corner.

 

 

[Coder Tim]

I'm definitely agreeing with the majority opinion that less is more.  As suggested by @Lacathedrale I've thinned Hellydale down a bit more, two platforms and no carriage siding now, and pushed it further back into the corner.  That's helped with access and I'm liking the look of it a lot more now.  The only difficulty is where to store carriages overnight, I'm hoping I can shuffle enough space in the existing sidings but if not the turnout for the Hellydale goods sidings can be made into a threeway to add a dedicated siding without taking up any extra space.  Other advantages of this arrangement are that I can have the overbridge station building which was a nice-to-have (evoking Keighley on the Airedale line) and I have easier access to the sidings, both for visibility and handling.

 

 

 

I also had the idea to switch Xenasholme and Timsden and that seems to have improved everything, removed a loop on a tight corner and increased the distance between stations a bit.

 

Finally on the removable sections, they're quite rough at the moment, I'll start looking into them in more detail when planning the woodwork.  The main priority at the moment is making sure I can find seems where there won't be anything parked on them or any complex track crossing the joins.

 

Thanks again for all the comments so far.

[RJS1977]

If you don't want anything parked on the removable section by the door, I'd be inclined to move Xenasholme station to the left a little (with the passing loop coming off the curve in the LH corner) so that the platform is entirely within the removable section.

 

I'd still be inclined to make the area behind Timsden an open access hole rather than part of a removable section, especially now you've got the goods sidings up there. I'd anticipate that if you were operating with a friend, there would be an operating position up there for Hellydale.

[Aire Head]

If I was to make a suggestion I'd say to get rid of the turntable and engine shed area and turn that into the goods yard for Hellydale. 

 

As it is it doesn't really add anything to the operation of the layout in my opinion.

 

Where the goods yard is currently for Hellydale can be either left blank or if you feel you must have a shed I'd put it there.

 

I'd not bother with the turntable as the layout works best when using tank engines running small trains where the need to turn a Locomotive is removed.

[Harlequin]

The return loop is very costly in terms of space and is making the whole plan more awkward than it could be. It only works in the clockwise to anticlockwise route. It requires very tight radii that might conflict somewhat with your finer scale aspirations. The turntable means that you don't need the return loop to turn engines (and anyway there are other ways to turn engines). So does it really pay for itself?

 

On the plus side the return loop does make the layout a bit different from contemporary designs - much more like a CJF design from 50 years ago, which is not necessarily a bad thing.

 

Having the main circuit run through the storage system is also a bit uncomfortable because you will have to make sure there's a road in place and correctly aligned all the time. It would be safer and more flexible if the storage was on a loop off the main circuit so that you could be fiddling with it, preparing the next train to run or putting an empty road in place, while a train is safely running on the circuit.

 

Edited January 8, 2022 by Harlequin

[Coder Tim]

It's been a while and I've been mulling how to remove the return loop and still have the branch line operate the way I want.  I realised there will only ever be one train beyond Timsden at once and it will never be more than four feet long.  This seems manageable for a cassette or one-track version of a Denny fiddle yard, with a base under it so rotating it will involve sliding rather than lifting.  This is the result:

 

 

 

 

There are a lot of pros here, it brings operation of the branch back to my original plan, solves the access problems, removes the awkward junction by the door, makes the woodwork a lot easier and lets me ease all the curves to at least 2 feet (not done that yet).  The big downside is that I feel it looses a lot of the character of the plan, but I think that's probably a trade worth making.

 

To answer some specific points:

 

@RJS1977 It's a good point about shifting Xenasholme off the removable section, my worry there is that I'll have less than one train-length of plain line between it and Timsden, one to think about.  I understand what you mean about the hole in the baseboards now, I'll definitely do it that way if I do stick with the return loop, thanks.

 

@Aire Head I tried having the goods yard where the shed is but couldn't get enough storage in there for anticipated traffic patterns, I might be able to do it now by running it all down that side though, will have a think about it.  I'd like the turntable because it's going to be tender engines on the branch, entirely a rule 1 thing for a West Riding branch but the West Highland Line was tender operated.  I'm also interested in running an observation car, another West Highland Line idiosyncrasy, which would need turning.

 

@Harlequin As you can see from the latest attempt I've had a think about the value of the return loop and I'm tending to agree about it not paying for itself.  On storage running through the main loop, whilst that loop is the "main line" I'm not that interested in it's operation, the main focus is the branch line.  The main line is mostly to deliver wagons and coaches from storage to the branch in a vaguely plausible way.  It didn't necessarily need to be a continuous loop at all, I just went with that because it seemed to fit the space better and it lets me do running in of new stock when necessary.

 

Thanks again for all the input so far, much appreciated