Fairweather Posted September 7, 2015 Share Posted September 7, 2015 Good Evening all, I'm starting to put together a plan for my first o gauge layout, and am after any advice, criticism or outright "don't go there, it's a terrible plan". I've had two plans, both basically the same but swapping a bay for a loco shed. The plans are loosely inspired on Helston, with its goods yard, and Bodmin, with it's two outbound lines. I've marked the rough locations of platforms, goods shed etc, but otherwise its just a track plan. The fiddle yard is in the bottom left, looking like 5'. The layout would be in a garage, 16' x 9'. As I said, any thoughts greatly appreciated. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
DCB Posted September 8, 2015 Share Posted September 8, 2015 They look good except the coal siding leading directly off the main line. Simply having the inner line as the main line and the outer as the mineral line would address this. Bodmin has two equally important approach lines in as trains ran through Bodmin from Bodmin Road to Wadebridge, very few if any trains terminated there. Goods from Wadebridge were often brought up from Boscarne in two parts with the engine returning engine and brake van to collect the second portion. Bodmin seems to have had a laybye siding next to the loop and a goods siding beyond. I am not sure the crossover beyond the goods shed adds anything. I would have the platform loop just end in a single road and have a dead end siding beyond the goods shed. Cinderford had your arrangement more or less. I operate a terminus with a short stub opposite the platform road as per your plan and find the stub is entirely useless. Operationally all trains would normally run into the platform road, Goods and Passenger. The loco would run round and in the case of a Goods possibly shunt the sidings pulling out the empties. I wonder if your coal siding is long enough. I use our main line as a headshunt and pull the empties out on the back of the incoming wagons before setting them back into the platform, (our mainline is 30 odd feet long) and arranging the incoming wagons, half loaded wagons in between empties adds to the frustration/ operating challenges and there is always a rush to get the shunting done and back to the junction in the gap between passenger trains. (or rain storms) Presumably you could stack a freight on the mineral line and have passenger and goods in simultaneously. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jim.snowdon Posted September 8, 2015 Share Posted September 8, 2015 Like David, I would regard the coal siding having a turnout off the main line as odd. Full size, it would have required the main line points to have a facing point lock (added expense) and the siding would have needed a trap point (more expense). The other word of warning is in regard to curved points, in as much as when the turnout route is on the inside of the curve, either the radius tightens very rapidly or, in order to keep a decent radius, the overall turnout length gets considerable. Operationally, I wouldn't worry about using the main running lines as part of the shunting moves - leaving parts of trains on the main line was quite common where there wasn't too much traffic. But, there is a proviso, in that it would not be permitted by the Board of Trade on a line with a significant down gradient away from the station for obvious reasons. Stations were, in any case, required to be level, or at least flatter than 1:400. Having a single line would have added operational complication, as the signalman would have to obtain the token simply in order to allow the shunt to take place. Regards, Jim Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gismorail Posted September 8, 2015 Share Posted September 8, 2015 Looking good like the flow of the whole station Are you having a fixed fiddle yard or a sector plate considering the size Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fairweather Posted September 9, 2015 Author Share Posted September 9, 2015 Thank you all for your comments and suggestions. I think I'll change both approach lines to "mainlines" rather than limiting one to minerals, as this would give more operational potential. I've also redone the plan, eliminating the turnout off the mainline to the coal siding. One question; would such a combination as I had before (with the turnout of the mainline to the coal siding) ever be done at a branch line? Just wondering, as I almost prefer the look of that one. If it's not prototypical though I'll ditch that idea. Regarding curves through curved points, the tightest is 5'3" - less than I would like, but should be ok for small 2-6-2 tanks. As for the fiddle yard I was going to use cassettes, but a 5' cassette may not be the best plan. Most likely I'll go for a traverser type. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
DCB Posted September 9, 2015 Share Posted September 9, 2015 The coal siding has now become awkward to shunt, I would use the 1st plan and add a short spur at the mainline end of the coal siding as a trap The GWR were particularly fond of short apparently useless spurs. Kemble still has one. There is not really enough coal provision for my taste, it was rather dominant in many GWR Termini. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Siberian Snooper Posted September 9, 2015 RMweb Premium Share Posted September 9, 2015 The GW went to great lengths to avoid facing turnouts in passenger carrying lines, to the point of having a trailing turnout and a diamond in the other line. As for the fiddle yard, can I suggest a traverser with provision for short cassettes at each end to allow for moving the loco from one end to the other without the need to handle the engine it self. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jim.snowdon Posted September 9, 2015 Share Posted September 9, 2015 Most railways avoided facing points like the plague. As for your coal siding, it would work better if it led from the run round loop, although this would necessitate a diamond crossing. However, with any of your track layouts, it is evidentthat you appreciate the need to hand build the track, in which case a bit of more complex pointwork should not be too much of a challenge. You may also find that the concept of the Barry Slip (Google it) is worthwhile as nearly a double slip but much simpler to construct. Talking of track construction, what gauge are you going to use? Diamond crossings are easier to construct in 31.5, or better, 31.25mm gauge, or in S7 - the choice depends a lot on whether or not you want to use standard finescale wheels. 31.5mm gauges are freely available from both Roxey and debs. Jim Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fairweather Posted September 10, 2015 Author Share Posted September 10, 2015 Thank you all for your help. I've re-jigged the design, new one attached. The diamond to the cattle dock/ coal siding will be a single slip, and the one between main lines a double slip (once I master that part of templot!). I built track before on my last o gauge layout, which was let down badly by poor baseboards. This time I'm planning on using the Barry Norman beam approach of mdf/ply and soft wood to get curved baseboards (unless anyone has any suggestions, I've always followed the 2'x1' and solid top principle before). As to the track gauge, I've planned the points using 31.5mm, as I believe that helps performance through them. I think the fiddle yard traverser and cassette combination should work well. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jim.snowdon Posted September 10, 2015 Share Posted September 10, 2015 Grand. Now all you need to do (well, could do) is to run the siding that is between the main line and the loco shed as a lead off the loco shed road and you would have (in full size terms) saved another facing point lock. You won't forget that both these sidings will need trap points, although that is a detail that may not show on the drawing. I would check the angle on your slip point - you don't really want to be going beyond 1:8;5 with fixed crossings, otherwise you are liable to run into difficulties with wheels not checking properly through the two middle crossings. It is also worth building the middle of the slip nearer 31.25mm in order to minimise the flangeway gaps, which will help with the guidance of the wheelsets. Jim Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fairweather Posted September 12, 2015 Author Share Posted September 12, 2015 Added trap points to the sidings/ loco shed. Also the crossings came out at 1:8 so that's ok. I'll look into getting some 31.5 and 31.25mm gauges. Thank you all again for your help. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.