Through Fiddle Yard where trains turn back - Optioneering

[Tom J]

My young son's layout is running massively overdue and whilst in his mother's home talk is of X-Boxes, he has very modestly asked Father Christmas for some track. I am hoping to get cracking and make an order but I have to solve a long-running dilemma.

 

Our layout is a model of Swithland, on the latter-day GCR, assuming the station was reinstated, as was mooted a few years back. The layout will be a continuous run - the idea being that the layout can be operated prototypically (i.e. trains going towards Quorn and Rothley and then returning, possibly with a change of motive power) or train(s) running continuously in the same direction, the latter being more suited to his own use at home. It is planned that the layout will be exhibit-able, assuming we reach the requisite standards.

 

I have two possible fiddle yards sketched out. My skills with the latest version of RailModeller are rather feeble so I have resorted to pen and ink for diagrammatic purposes! Obviously, I would expect the other end of the yard to be the mirror image.

 

 

The upper plan was what I always envisaged. It means that there are four fully 'bi-di' roads up the middle which can handle reversing trains (top and tail moves to Rothley Brook, for example, can go straight in and back out without being touched) with those outside essentially providing a running line through the fiddle yard and a further loop on the outside (the innermost having a connection also to the Mountsorrel branch). The facing crossover at the outer end means you can access every road from the 'down' direction, and access the 'up' line from any road. In theory, though, you can use many, many, permutations and still have trains running in both directions without them tripping over one another.

The thing is though, this layout is dependent on a double slip at each throat. It's a little less straightforward to lay, and it's making me nervous. Probably needlessly.

If I went for a conventional 'fan' either side, in the lower diagram, there would be far, far more conflicting movements as you tried to get trains into and out of the fiddle yard (which will be busy!) - you would also need to commit a train to its next journey as it entered, crossing it over as it entered the fiddle yard if you wanted it to return the way it came in. It does save a load of money and complexity in installation, but the professional railwayman in me is mindful of the degree to which saving money on a simplified layout has the potential to give you operational headaches and cost for many years to come!

 

To get around the deficiencies of the fans, in the space available, you'd need to replace the crossover with a pair of scissors, at which you may as well have used the diamond arrangement, which is cheaper!  In terms of control, ultimately I will want the switches operating remotely on DCC.

I'm erring on the side of the original plan, but I'd be most appreciative of some thoughts, one way or the other, before I start buying little yellow packets and commit myself!

[Pete Harvey]

I think the top design but remove the crossover and have the four inner sidings as Bi directional and keep the outer four as uni directional.

[Joseph_Pestell]

Length may be an issue. But the simplest arrangement is just two trailing crossovers at each end of the fans.

[Silver Sidelines]

Even simpler - take the double track down to a single line and then fan out from that.

 

Ray

[jamie92208]

Even simpler - take the double track down to a single line and then fan out from that.

 

Ray

I've got exactly that solution on Lancaster Green Ayre.  I've got to reverse EMU's and light engines and take them all onto one central road.  The LE's go forward to their own shuttle system and eh EMU's just reverse.  3 standard point in all.  I'll try and post a photo if I can find one that shows it.

 

Jamie

[Tom J]

I like the single track fan idea, but it does preclude two trains running at once. I was hoping for Thomas Ivor to be able to leave one running whilst he sorted others out.

 

I agree though, the length saved by ditching the crossovers (if I went with the double slip plan) is probably worth it in making all the roads longer. Several of the formations we'd be assembling would then fit together.

 

I did look at one of those Nelevator things, but we just don't have the budget, sadly. That looks brilliant.

[jamie92208]

With option 1 you can still run two trains at once .  If you have something running on the inner main track.  You can still have a train moving either to or from the reversing siding on the outer line or vice versa.

 

Jamie

[sub39h]

Scissor crossings about 4/5 of the way down the page. They use a 50mm spacing (like Peco Streamline), rather than the 67mm of set track

 

http://www.scalelink.co.uk/acatalog/Shinohara_Track___Pointwork__HO____Aiguillages.html

[DCB]

It seems to me it depends on the room you have available, crossovers eat length at least 14" nearer 18" for 3 ft radius in 00. Scissors are tricky as they need lots of width or a lot of sawing up if you use Peco points.  Slips are short radius and tricky beasts which suffer wear in heavy use, I avoid them.

 

If I were doing it I would have a simple fan with facing crossovers.  This would allow arrivals in either direction to all loops but down departures only from down sidings and up from up.  My rationale is it would make reversing easier in that the uncoupling ramps could be at the normally arrivals end of the sidings so reversing trains would run wrong side, cut off the loco on the uncoupling ramp and a replacement loco attach to the other end.  

 

My uncompleted loft layout has  simple fans of sidings off a loop with triangular junctions so any train can go in either direction, but it is hopelessly overcomplicated and largely abandoned.

 

I did design and operate a set of hidden sidings some 30 years ago which worked well albeit with Hornby Dublo couplings. despite having only around 6 inches clearance over it as it sat below a terminus.   I attach a plan of it, the rings are some of the push buttons for the diode matrix operated  points  push one yellow button to select that road or one red one or one green one. It worked very well.   The long headshunt allowed swapping trains and detaching locos while trains passed on the through lines.  The outer siding was used for fiddling as in adding coal loads and was the main loco detaching road, outgoing locos pulled their trains into the headshunt and then set their trains back into the dead end sidings but it was about 20 feet long and one road could only cope with 7 coaches.

[Zomboid]

I would go with option 1, but instead of a double slip I'd just put 2 Y points back to back - ought to be cheaper and simpler. With typical y point geometry you'd need 4 at each end to set up the loops, and then however many others for the number of loops you want.

[Chimer]

I think the top design but remove the crossover and have the four inner sidings as Bi directional and keep the outer four as uni directional.

 

 

I would go with option 1, but instead of a double slip I'd just put 2 Y points back to back - ought to be cheaper and simpler. With typical y point geometry you'd need 4 at each end to set up the loops, and then however many others for the number of loops you want.

 

For me, these two together - ditch the crossover and replace the slip with 2 Ys.

[jamie92208]

As threatened I've had a trawl through my layout construction photos and actually have a photo of the turnback siding.  You can see it in the centre of the picture with 5 roads either side if it.  In the distance it splits into a loop where Light engines will shuttle around.

 

Hope it's of some use.  The whole fiddle yard was designed with Templot.

 

Jamie