Barton Abbey Track Plan

[BartonAbbey]

Hello All, It's time to stop prevaricating and get on with things! Having been assembling engines and rolling stock for a while I really need something to use them on so here is my proposed track plan for Barton Abbey - a fictitious town that I am setting in the Gloucester-Worcester area in the era of green diesels/DMUs but could go a few years either way into steam or blue diesel.

 

 

The scale is 00 and the dimensions of the board (already built)are 244cm x 50cm with a 90cm turntable fiddle yard to the left. I seem to have been "researching" and fiddling around in AnyRail for months and I think this fits the bill for what is my first layout since my "youf" (which is now 40 years ago - much the time in which this is set) and that wasn't very scenic.

 

As a first attempt I'm not aspiring for perfection but would like a reasonable representation of reality but have no "railway" experience either real or model. So the questions I pose are:-

1) Is this plan workable?

2) Are there any glaring errors/ommissions?

3) How could it be improved?

 

I don't think the station is big enough to warrant a shed but will have a parcels depot on the bay platform. The industry in the area is as yet unspecified but I'm thinking along the lines of a brewery, engineering works or possibly timber yard together with the all purpose goods shed and coal yard. The area behind the station will, I think, be low relief terraced housing.

 

I'm sure there is loads that I've forgotten to include here but I know that you guys are great at asking the right questions of us new boys! Thank you all in anticipation of your comments.

 

Mark (BartonAbbey)

[The Stationmaster]

Looks ok to me - should involve some interesting shunting as you have sidings facing both ways so that will help keep up yopur operational interest without descending into the twee.

 

And to justify all those parcels activities - a local 'something' mill has become a mail order business ...excuse for loads of traffic, just like Worcester and Kidderminster had at one time.

[edcayton]

I personally would try to avoid the 3 way point on the main line, on the grounds that what can go wrong will go wrong. I also think (but will be shouted down) that the real thing would try to avoid it where possible. Otherwise I agree with the Stationmaster. Good luck and enjoy

 

Ed

['CHARD]

Stationmaster's bang-on with the mail order suggestion, a great traffic generator in your chosen period; seasonal peaks manifested by extra 12-tonners in the daily freight or NPCCS tacked onto your service trains. I tend to see Ed's point (groan!) as well, but in view of its proximity to the end of the line it would only ever be traversed at low speed, so it's possibly okay.

[Kenton]

I personally would try to avoid the 3 way point on the main line

Completely agree with that one, or at least use the slightly better asymmetric 3-way.

 

I'm a bit lost about the purpose of the two sidings top left.

 

Pity it isn't earlier steam as you could have incorporated a shed but you ar correct in that by the chosen time period it would have probably been rationalised.

[Dave777]

I too was a bit confused about the sidings next to the factory - I think it's just the geometry though that makes them look slightly out of place. They're maybe a bit short too, perhaps one long siding might be more plausible, but on the flipside two sidings gives more shunting opportunities and it’s not like having two is a total howler on the realism front.

 

The only other things I’d point out are that in order to get to the factory sidings you need to clear the parcels/bay road out first. This isn’t necessarily a problem as often it’s good to leave some operating snags in the plan to keep the interest up, I’m just pointing it out as an operational aspect of the plan to consider - if you run in some parcels traffic you then won't be able to access the factory sidings until you've moved the parcels traffic out again.

 

And the other thing is that you could move the coal yard somewhere else (in the siding next to the goods shed for example) and include a knackered, disused single road engine shed about where the signal box is. This would then allow trains to disappear from view behind the engine shed when they exit the layout while also providing an interesting modelling project with the shed (you could probably achieve much the same effect with the signal box as it happens). However, back on the operational front again this means that shunting an arriving goods train becomes a might easier because both the coal and goods shed sidings would then be facing the same way, so you lose some operational interest that way…

 

Well done on angling the tracks away from the baseboard edge - a common trap that many fall into, myself included.

[The Stationmaster]

I personally would try to avoid the 3 way point on the main line, on the grounds that what can go wrong will go wrong. I also think (but will be shouted down) that the real thing would try to avoid it where possible. Otherwise I agree with the Stationmaster. Good luck and enjoy

 

Ed

 

I won't shout you down Ed Definitely a rarity (e.g Ventnor IoW) I agree but not an impossibility and space is presumably the consideration/design factor which led to it as it does save space.

 

As far as the siding layout is concerned it will present a challenge for shunting and therein lies part of the ongoing 'value' of the design as it offers more than all sidings facing the same way. It makes interesting use of the space as well which, in my view, adds to the attraction of the overall design without making it too crowded.

[Flying Pig]

If you plan to use Peco points, bear in mind that the symmetric three-way is available only in code 100 (the tandem three-way is code 75 only).

 

There should be a trap point between the siding top left and the bay and if it's a private siding, I believe there should also be a gate on the private side of the trap. So even if you don't have a working trap point, you'll need a length of plain line before the siding splits. Why not carry the siding(s) all the way off scene behind an industrial building, so you can swap full and empty wagons in the fiddle yard.

[BartonAbbey]

Thanks very much to those who commented on my track plan - I apologise for being rather tardy in thanking you but the last couple of weeks has been spent concentrating on another hobby - set-building and scene shifting for a drama group.

 

I'm pleased that none of you has spotted any total howlers with the plan!

 

Stationmaster - excellent idea re the mail order firms being the source of parcels traffic. That certainly gives me ideas for the low-relief buildings and some road vehicles. 'Chard - I'm already seeing some very mixed NPCCS line-ups in the parcels bay!

 

I'm interested in the comments on the 3 way point but I am already committed (by ownership!) to Code 100 track and that point so I guess I'll just keep my fingers crossed re its operational efficiency. I certainly won't be charging any trains over it at high speed.

 

Kenton and Dave777 - to be honest the sidings at the top are a space filler! I realised the operational difficulties re clearing the parcels bay right from the off but thought that any industry that close to the railway would have a siding or two. Having thought about it a bit more I think this could be a semi-derelict, low-usage area that will give me a bit of scope to model and park some "well-weathered" rolling stock. Taking Flying Pig's idea I could gate it and have the whole area slightly decaying and weed infested. I take your point re extending the sidings into the fiddle yard but think I'll keep that as a future enhancement (I've actually already built a 5 road turntable fiddle yard that I can't fit to that idea).

 

Dave777 - Good idea re engine shed and moving the coal yard. A shed would certainly make for a more effective scenic break than the signal box and no reason why the box can't be on the other side of the line I guess. In the mid to late sixties did old steam era engine sheds house diesels/become refuelling points or were they demolished or just fall into disuse?

 

Thanks for all your help.

 

Mark (Barton Abbey)

[edcayton]

You could of course use the 3way instead of the two points; this would make the sidings longer and not affect the amount of room in the bay itself.

 

Ed

[PWSlack]

I personally would try to avoid the 3 way point on the main line, on the grounds that what can go wrong will go wrong. I also think (but will be shouted down) that the real thing would try to avoid it where possible. Otherwise I agree with the Stationmaster. Good luck and enjoy

 

Ed

 

Quite.

 

Interlace, yes.

 

Three-way, no: it just wasn't done. There are several objections to it: thin blades, non-maintenance of the gauge towards the tips and the inability to fit two facing point lock mechanisms are among them.

[PWSlack]

How are road vehicles going to access the Goods Shed and the coal yard if the factory is in the way as it seems?

[Kris]

How are road vehicles going to access the Goods Shed and the coal yard if the factory is in the way as it seems?

 

They could access from any point along the front of the layout. Although for the railway it may have been more convenient to have an access point closer to the passenger access point, there could have been many reasons not to do this, existing buildings, an unfavourable gradient, better access to a road / potential large customer.

[cary hill]

How are road vehicles going to access the Goods Shed and the coal yard if the factory is in the way as it seems?

 

Surely the assumed access to the Goods Shed and Coal Yard doesn't necessarily have to be from "stage right"? Could it not be from the "bottom/front" or "left" of the plan as there must have been many examples in real world where the goods access was completely independent of the passenger access? Access might, for example, be from a not (as yet) modelled overbridge on the left - this could be a "view block" to frame the left end of the layout if it could be fitted in(bit doubtful). I assume the potentially offending factory is there as the right end "view block"

[beast66606]

Quite.

 

Interlace, yes.

 

Three-way, no: it just wasn't done. There are several objections to it: thin blades, non-maintenance of the gauge towards the tips and the inability to fit two facing point lock mechanisms are among them.

 

It was done, but not often.

[Kris]

Plenty of station had access to the goods via a seperate entrance from the passenger approach..Indeed, off the top of my head I cant think of one that didn't!

 

 

Trowbridge and Bradford on Avon had joint entrances I think

 

 

 

 

[BartonAbbey]

Hi All, Thanks very much for feedback to date. Taking account of some comments I have "adjusted" the plan to move the 3-way point away from the station throat (thanks Ed Cayton), move the coal yard and introduce a single road engine shed which will act as the scenic break for the fiddle yard entrance. The industry at the right end becomes a mail order warehouse. As follows:-

 

 

Hopefully that will cut down on potential problems with the three way point. The twin sidings off the bay will be infrequently used and probably gated and just used for stock storage. I've been thinking about using the new Cobalt point motors and I might just save myself £30 or so and have that operated by the "H of G"?

 

Re the entrance to the goods/coal yard I had always intended that this be from the front end of the board but that the "road" would not be modelled - possibly just a wall and entrance gate and a few allotments or just waste ground.

 

Cary Hill's point re an overbridge at the left end for access to the yards and as scenic break was considered early on but dismissed as personally I don't like roads that cross the railway and just stop at the backscene! A bit too contrived I feel?

 

As ever - comments very welcome.

 

Mark (BartonAbbey)

[Kris]

Hi Mark.

 

I think that the plan would work better if you swapped the goods yard entrance point with the bay entrance point. This would give you a smoother entrance to the bay and would allow you to swing the engine shed siding fractionally away from the running line (I think that it may be too close at the moment). The additional benefit of this is that you could introduce a coaling / watering area just in front of the shed which could be used without entering the shed or blocking the loop. The down side to the this is that you lose a little length on the loop.

The other though that I have is about the engine shed. I quite agree with you about roads going straight into the back scene (although I am guilty of this myself) but if you place an engine shed in the location you propose you lose your head shunt meaning that any wagons that need moving in the yard are likely to require movements that block the main running line. If you went down the route of swapping the points it might be tempting to place the goods shed in the location of the engine shed to create the scenic break. The line that the goods shed is on could then become the coal yard with the current coal yard line becoming a milage siding.

[Undecided]

I think I would move the loco shed elsewhere and use this line as a goods head shunt,it will keep from fouling the main line.

[The Stationmaster]

Placing the three way point on the end of the bay looks a bit odd to me - it would look a lot better if you reduced down to a single siding on that side to avoid having the three way.

 

And keep the yard/loop entrance point furthest from the stop blocks or you will start to make the yard look more cramped - not clever on the side of the layout which is, I presume, most open to view.

 

I think puttng the loco shed just there looks rather 'twee' - it's what everybody does and you're starting to lose the individuality you had in your original plan. I would seriously suggest you look for something else as a 'view blocker' where you leave the scenic area. Hope this helps without confusing