Blackbuck Posted May 18, 2015 Author Share Posted May 18, 2015 I would say that it depends on whether you really want to build a headshunt long enough to drag the whole train clear--a three way might look a bit "busy" for the feel I believe you're going for but I think it would be the more appropriate option. Nor would it take away much room for your goods yard. For the yard, it would be best if it 'works' solely in one direction, i.e. everything accessed from left-to-right. There's an excellent layout on RMWeb based on the GWR yard at Plymouth, Small Plymouth Goods, which could be a useful starting point for a rethink. Long, spaced out tracks, a loading crane, goods shed, a short loading platform even--all features that have appeared in your designs. If you flip it and omit the cattle dock/runaround bit that could be quite simple and workable. Coal facilities would still need to be worked out. Quentin That's one of the things running through my head, if you've got a hefty train with you then you need a hefty headshunt to clear it... As for the three-way, I agree it does make things seem busier but it does seem the best option space wise. I'd imagine once in place the back of the station would end up looking like Minehead but with a road added in between the loop and shed for goods reception. I'll take a look at the Plymouth Goods layout too and see what I can come up with in Anyrail. ~Mark. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold The Stationmaster Posted May 18, 2015 RMweb Gold Share Posted May 18, 2015 No need to! Striking a balance between realism and operational playability has always been a point of content for myself. The main idea running through my head as to be able to separate the individual types of traffic from one and other however this in hindsight seems somewhat daft... --- With regards to a reception road, would you pilot the train off with a resident loco and release the train loco that way or connect the reception road via a three way to the existing run-round loop? ~Mark I wouldn't go for a goods reception line - quite unusual for a small station. But it would no doubt be handy to have a long sidings where you could put together a freight ready for departure and it would be a help when shunting, and it could kickback towards a shunting spur although that needn't be anything like a full train length. The sensible place to put it would be as Don suggested which could well mean doing away with the parcels spur in order to create the needed width in the goods yard - in my view getting the appearance right for that is more important than adding sidings as to receive or form up a freight but the decision is down to you and depends on what you want. There is no need to alter your goods facilities at the left end of the yard although I would think a cattle dock might be more useful/common than a provender spur or maybe the siding is long enough for both? And you could save non railway yard space by putting the end loading dock at the end of the run round line for Platform 1 perhaps? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Karhedron Posted May 18, 2015 Share Posted May 18, 2015 If you want to concentrate on the passenger side of things, Birkenhead Woodside was a real-life GWR/LNWR terminus. It was rather like an enlarged version of Minories with 5 platforms. It also had a convenient tunnel just beyond the station throat if you need a scenic break. Track plan can be found here. http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/17724-birkenhead-woodside/?p=173972 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blackbuck Posted May 19, 2015 Author Share Posted May 19, 2015 Ah, feedback! See below for responses and a new plan. I wouldn't go for a goods reception line - quite unusual for a small station. But it would no doubt be handy to have a long sidings where you could put together a freight ready for departure and it would be a help when shunting, and it could kickback towards a shunting spur although that needn't be anything like a full train length. The sensible place to put it would be as Don suggested which could well mean doing away with the parcels spur in order to create the needed width in the goods yard - in my view getting the appearance right for that is more important than adding sidings as to receive or form up a freight but the decision is down to you and depends on what you want. There is no need to alter your goods facilities at the left end of the yard although I would think a cattle dock might be more useful/common than a provender spur or maybe the siding is long enough for both? And you could save non railway yard space by putting the end loading dock at the end of the run round line for Platform 1 perhaps? Well. I've tried to heed your advice, as best I can that is... The overall feel is somewhat busier IMO given the expanse of parallel track but that's unavoidable given the lengths involved. Shades of Barnstaple Victoria are beginning to appear again to my eye. Given the nature of the coal and livestock traffic my thinking is that the two kickbacks might well actually be workable The dock spur has moved to the space the parcels spur once occupied (which now I imagine will be dealt with on a platform face) The 'short road' is now a spur off the back crossover and has the usage of the yard crane as required The station throat out of necessity has been compressed somewhat more than previously Platform faces have been re-jigged length wise due to the pointwork for them being brought forward If you want to concentrate on the passenger side of things, Birkenhead Woodside was a real-life GWR/LNWR terminus. It was rather like an enlarged version of Minories with 5 platforms. It also had a convenient tunnel just beyond the station throat if you need a scenic break. Track plan can be found here. http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/17724-birkenhead-woodside/?p=173972 I did muse over a Minories type thing when I first started looking into a permanent layout but decided against it, mainly due to it not fitting in with the idea I had in mind. ------- Something I'm pondering is whether the double slip providing entrance to the yard could be turned into a single slip with running around being completed by a second crossover between the platform 2 access and platforms themselves, or would that just be superfluous? ~Mark. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold The Stationmaster Posted May 19, 2015 RMweb Gold Share Posted May 19, 2015 I think the track layout is now pretty good although there is a missing trap point (a minor matter). My only comment now relates to freight handling where I would extend what looks like a paved (or 'built up ground area') by the goods shed as far as possible towards the 'V' where the shed road and short road come together. The layout of the goods yard sidings overall suffers from a common model railway shortcoming of insufficient siding space to handle full loads traffic compared with the amount of siding space given over to (goods) shed traffic. In reality except at the very largest depots - where everything tended to be done undercover siding space for full loads tended to be much greater than sidings pace for shed traffic. You've taken care of part of it with teh separate coal road and cattle dock road but the remainder of full loads space strikes me as rather compressed. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blackbuck Posted May 19, 2015 Author Share Posted May 19, 2015 Thanks for the feedback once again. Which area for the trap? I assume you mean the exit from the yard to the running line? Short of unloading in the shed road or access road to the short road I don't know where you could really handle much except maybe by re-purposing the carriage siding into a goods road and have facilities either side a la Thurso but that's just inviting complex movements in and out of the station to and from the yard proper. Another option I suppose would be to have the goods shed on the short road and use what was the shed road for extra capacity or as a mileage siding. ~Mark Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold The Stationmaster Posted May 20, 2015 RMweb Gold Share Posted May 20, 2015 Thanks for the feedback once again. Which area for the trap? I assume you mean the exit from the yard to the running line? Short of unloading in the shed road or access road to the short road I don't know where you could really handle much except maybe by re-purposing the carriage siding into a goods road and have facilities either side a la Thurso but that's just inviting complex movements in and out of the station to and from the yard proper. Another option I suppose would be to have the goods shed on the short road and use what was the shed road for extra capacity or as a mileage siding. ~Mark The trap needs to be on the line in front of the signalbox in order to trap moves coming from the engine shed. All other trapping is covered in the latest plan. The goods yard solution depends on how you want to play it - the outdoor part of the shed road to the left of the shed could be used as could the line leading to the short road (giving some interesting shunting so not such a bad idea perhaps?) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blackbuck Posted May 20, 2015 Author Share Posted May 20, 2015 I had actually placed a catch point there to do just that though it may not be readily apparent in the plan, a full scale trap and spur to my mind would A: look awkward and B: interfere with the trap for the carriage siding. As for the shed conundrum, I think that having it off the former short road might be the better way as it would mean the road is short enough to not interfere with space elsewhere as there aren't going to be hordes of wagons propelled through at any given time. The final thing niggling away at me is that siding on the halt. It's impossible to shunt from the station direction where incidentally most of the wagons are likely to be at one time. Having the pointwork the other way around doesn't work either as it necessitates moving onto the traverser. So for the sake of simplicity I may just do away with it as keeping it with a kickback would need for it to be accessed from somewhere along the platform face to give clearance and even then the resulting siding would either be really curved or necessitate a further kickback into a straighter line for loading and unloading... Excluding any other points raised I think the station layout might be ready to be frozen. ~Mark. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jon_1066 Posted May 20, 2015 Share Posted May 20, 2015 One quick comment. Why not use a three way point in the goods yard to save the double S into the Shed Road? You may find stock doesn't like being propelled through the double slip then the two points during shunting. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blackbuck Posted May 20, 2015 Author Share Posted May 20, 2015 Amended, hopefully this should be it as far as major adjustments. Some minor tweaks have been made here and there as well as aforementioned three-way point. The main changes are spacing the paved area out better for carts and vehicles to come and go. The halt has been pruned but is still to be a block post. Instead of their being a siding there's now a lockup on the platform for sundries and other smallish items. ~Mark. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BobM Posted May 20, 2015 Share Posted May 20, 2015 All the best with the layout my friend...I too have returned to this hobby after nearly 30 years...keep tweaking my plans but 'getting there' as British Railway once said....I have found the comments from all quarters on here most help and formative....Enjoy the track laying and then modelling.....Regards to all...Bob Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr Gerbil-Fritters Posted May 20, 2015 Share Posted May 20, 2015 >edit< I hadn't read the posts on page one of the thread where Kingswear got a mention! Sorry about that. Here's a nice GWR prototype that seems ready made to fit into a corner, it's very model railway friendly I think. It would fit pretty well into the space, and utilises the awkward corner well. It's almost tailor made for a layout in fact. It would be easy enough to add one or two more goods sidings either alongside the existing ones, or off a kickback but for operating, fewer longer sidings and fewer turnouts is usually better. I built a version of this a long long time ago. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mightbe Posted May 21, 2015 Share Posted May 21, 2015 Amended, hopefully this should be it as far as major adjustments. Some minor tweaks have been made here and there as well as aforementioned three-way point. The main changes are spacing the paved area out better for carts and vehicles to come and go. The halt has been pruned but is still to be a block post. Instead of their being a siding there's now a lockup on the platform for sundries and other smallish items. ~Mark. I hit the "Like" button but felt it was insufficient. Make that an emphatic "Like"! The only thing I'd change is make the headshunt about 6" longer and introduce some slight organic curving on the provender and coal roads. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blackbuck Posted May 21, 2015 Author Share Posted May 21, 2015 Again, I had looked at Kingswear but something about it just... I don't know, doesn't appeal to me, at least if doing it in OO. ---------- Those are simple enough adjustments to make mightbe ~Mark. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium kevinlms Posted May 21, 2015 RMweb Premium Share Posted May 21, 2015 One quick comment. Why not use a three way point in the goods yard to save the double S into the Shed Road? You may find stock doesn't like being propelled through the double slip then the two points during shunting. My club had a 3 way code 100 point about 20 years ago. It was a terrible piece of equipment. Replaced it with a left & right standard 3ft points, never a derailment since. Have they fixed it up in the meantime? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Joseph_Pestell Posted May 21, 2015 RMweb Gold Share Posted May 21, 2015 >edit< I hadn't read the posts on page one of the thread where Kingswear got a mention! Sorry about that. Here's a nice GWR prototype that seems ready made to fit into a corner, it's very model railway friendly I think. It would fit pretty well into the space, and utilises the awkward corner well. It's almost tailor made for a layout in fact. It would be easy enough to add one or two more goods sidings either alongside the existing ones, or off a kickback but for operating, fewer longer sidings and fewer turnouts is usually better. Kingswear 1954a.jpg Kingswear 1961.jpg I built a version of this a long long time ago. Looking at the signalling diagram, I see that it comes complete with a fiddleyard. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold The Stationmaster Posted May 21, 2015 RMweb Gold Share Posted May 21, 2015 Now looking very nice. BTW as far as the siding at the halt is concerned I don't see a problem with servicing the siding - it could readily be shunted by a train heading towards the terminus without any problem at all. and possibly even - although unusual and deoending on gradients it might even be serviced under Special Instructions which allowed traffic from the terminus to be propelled to it (limited number of wagons, brakevan leading, no steep falling gradient Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blackbuck Posted May 21, 2015 Author Share Posted May 21, 2015 My club had a 3 way code 100 point about 20 years ago. It was a terrible piece of equipment. Replaced it with a left & right standard 3ft points, never a derailment since. Have they fixed it up in the meantime? Perhaps some of the wiser here might answer that? As far as I'm aware though they're not that bad. Now looking very nice. BTW as far as the siding at the halt is concerned I don't see a problem with servicing the siding - it could readily be shunted by a train heading towards the terminus without any problem at all. and possibly even - although unusual and deoending on gradients it might even be serviced under Special Instructions which allowed traffic from the terminus to be propelled to it (limited number of wagons, brakevan leading, no steep falling gradient That last point would make for some rather interesting operations... However, I think in the interests of simplicity, reversion to a single platform face with goods lockup is the better option. I do have one question however to improve line capacity would it be feasible to have the small station / halt remain a block post switched in and out as necessary, or does that require a loop to be present? ~Mark. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold The Stationmaster Posted May 21, 2015 RMweb Gold Share Posted May 21, 2015 I do have one question however to improve line capacity would it be feasible to have the small station / halt remain a block post switched in and out as necessary, or does that require a loop to be present? ~Mark. Now there's interesting - the same question on two different threads on the same day! The answer is 'yes' - no problem at all having an intermediate block post, without any sort of passing loop or siding, on a single line, such things did exist and some made it into the 1960s. My only question would be however what is a block post going to do that an outer Home Signal and a really advanced Advanced Starting Signal won't - or are you looking for an illusion of greater distance between halt & terminus? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blackbuck Posted May 21, 2015 Author Share Posted May 21, 2015 It would be the latter. Sadly the lack of breadth puts paid to there being any true distance between the two. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold The Stationmaster Posted May 22, 2015 RMweb Gold Share Posted May 22, 2015 It would be the latter. Sadly the lack of breadth puts paid to there being any true distance between the two. Thought that might be the case - the signalbox will help that (as you no doubt had already worked out ). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr Gerbil-Fritters Posted May 22, 2015 Share Posted May 22, 2015 Again, I had looked at Kingswear but something about it just... I don't know, doesn't appeal to me, at least if doing it in OO. Poor old Kingswear, always the bridesmaid, never the bride.... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blackbuck Posted May 22, 2015 Author Share Posted May 22, 2015 Maybe someone can do it justice in all its glory someday I think barring any major alterations due to insulation that the plan is ready to be frozen then. Fun times. Now begins the photographic inspiration phase... ~Mark. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium melmerby Posted May 23, 2015 RMweb Premium Share Posted May 23, 2015 Maybe someone can do it justice in all its glory someday I think barring any major alterations due to insulation that the plan is ready to be frozen then. Fun times. Now begins the photographic inspiration phase... ~Mark. Just like to say I've enjoyed watching this layout design evolve from what was just a general idea into something that looks like it could have existed in real life. Keith Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blackbuck Posted May 23, 2015 Author Share Posted May 23, 2015 Now that's a vote of confidence if I do say so myself! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.