Dale Posted January 7, 2016 Share Posted January 7, 2016 Hi folks, I seem to have found myself with time on my hands and nothing I can do but while away the hours on my laptop (offshore and due to weather, confined to the floatel) so I got to playing with a layout plan. Its all code 75 Peco and so quite constrained, what with points, baseboard joints etc but i have come up with two plans. A single track BLT and a double track, more intensive version. Now the premise is to entertain joe public as well as being fun to operate - a train playing layout, but as always I want to stick to prototypical practice and form as much as possible. What are your feelings on both layout plans? And before anyone says it, I now there is a double slip (cough, spit) on one plan. Believe me, I would much rather it wasn't there but I cant see a way of avoiding it. Cheers all. D. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dale Posted January 7, 2016 Author Share Posted January 7, 2016 An alternative to the double track plan takes a big taste of Goathland/Stainsby with the siting of the coal drops and add's a timber engine shed (Bachmann RTP) for the branch engine. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
clachnaharry Posted January 7, 2016 Share Posted January 7, 2016 I like the latest double track version but why can't you repace the unwanted double slip with back to back turnouts? The headshunt will then run closer to the main line and the signalbox would sit behind it. Much more prototypical in my opinion. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Chimer Posted January 7, 2016 RMweb Premium Share Posted January 7, 2016 Without claiming detailed prototypical knowledge, I think the double track versions needs a facing crossover before the three-way point, so arriving trains have more routes than just to the lower platform road. Especially as this road is the headshunt for the coal yard / engine shed. Granted you could immediately run round an arrived passenger train and shunt it across to the other platform, but the extra crossover would increase flexibility. Indeed for the coal yard version I think I might lose the lower platform and just use that road for goods arrivals, with the crossover nearest the buffers reversed. Given that the plans look rural, I suspect the single line option is more realistic, but as a member of joe public, once I've admired the modelling on a classic single line branch terminus, the operation rarely holds me for long. Simultaneous arrivals and departures certainly provide better entertainment, though this does represent an unlikely traffic density. But if it was a secondary city terminus ...... let's not have another Minories thread though! Cheers Chris P.S. agree with Clachnaharry about back to back points instead of the slip. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dale Posted January 7, 2016 Author Share Posted January 7, 2016 Something like this? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zomboid Posted January 8, 2016 Share Posted January 8, 2016 That looks like what they're talking about. Still needs the crossover so that inbound trains can go somewhere other than the lower platform, though. I prefer the double track plan myself, it's a bit less of a cliche, and it was far from unheard of to have a double track line ending at a relatively minor location (particularly if you imagine a junction just off scene). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
clachnaharry Posted January 8, 2016 Share Posted January 8, 2016 That's what I meant about the headshunt. How about - removing the engine release crossover - adding a facing crossover further back on the bridge. This would allow a second train to arrive and run round whilst a train (or just empty coaches) is occupying the "departure" platform. It also allows a freight train to arrive, run round and start shunting whilst one or both of the passenger platforms are occupied. This allows a much more intensive service and helps justify the double track Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold russ p Posted January 8, 2016 RMweb Gold Share Posted January 8, 2016 I like the double track version but as said about you need to crossovers so both platforms are accessible. The other thing I would personally change is the station building. Most North riding termini had the building along side the platform in case they were extended coastal termini were the exception to this. You could always do Guisborough with its overall roof but this has been done. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dale Posted January 8, 2016 Author Share Posted January 8, 2016 Right chaps, firstly a huge thanks for the thoughts and advice so far. Playing around a bit I have made a few possible changes. Here goes:- 1. I have removed the 3 way point in favour of large radius. The code 75 is asymmetric and the turnout to the goods yard was 36". The larger radius will offer better running. 2. Moved the goods facilities to the right a bit 3. I have moved the station building from the end to the departure platform facing the public 4. Wall and gated the goods yard - were they in rural areas? 5. Is the cattle dock in the best place - directly opposite the messy coal yard? It’s about 23 cm between, so a big yard space but still? I am trying to keep enough space in front of the goods shed awning for a wagon to be able to manoeuvre and reverse its trailer to the shed dock without driving over the long back siding. 6. Added the foot bridge which I had omitted on the previous plans (possibly overkill but i have a gorgeous nickle silver etched kit so its a must). My thoughts on passenger operations were that the train would arrive on the bottom platform, the passengers would get off and the engine would run around its train. It would then pull the coaches back across the lines to the departure line and set the coaches back. The crew would then persuade the guard to buy the tea's and sarnies from the tea room, roll their cig's and wait for departure some time later. I have been trying to avoid 'wrong line running' and facing points which I have been told are cardinal sins. I am not really sure what that kick back siding off the engine shed point is for beyond a solitary loco coal wagon. The cleaner could shovel the coal straight from the wagon to the back of the coal staithe more easily than if the wagon were parked on the engine shed road. I thought its where cripples could be dumped, possibly a small crane (D&S one?), a strengthening coach should it be needed or maybe an extra loco parked up? Operation would be easier if i reversed the whole engine shed and siding around but that would be another facing point onto the arrivals (down) line and I am already sining with the facing crossover on the viaduct... The extra loop created with the viaduct crossover does make working that siding easier though. The way it stands (16’ version), I can now use the 'outer loop' to shunt (with a Black 5, arguably the greatest engine of all time and my test engine for planning) 2 1/2 Mk1's (my standard unit of measurement) without having to have a clear road on the traverser deck to back onto. The 40cm storage roads on the fiddleyard give me that manoeuvrability. The most the outer loop will take without fouling the crossovers is 3 Mk1's. I wish that outer loop could handle the 4 Mk1’s which is the max length the traverser deck can hold (with a MT tender engine: Hall/B1/Black 5) and the yard stick I am using but that would mean adding baseboards and that’s a sticky road to go down… where would it end? Well obviously it was worth the time just to see what an extra board would do and here we have it. Your thoughts please gents on all aspects… Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold russ p Posted January 8, 2016 RMweb Gold Share Posted January 8, 2016 Thats better, the longer one I think is better. You could do with a means of running round the train in the yard, just to make it easier for shunting. I once drew out a plan for a layout called newton under Roseberry , basically the line from Nunthorpe went single,a two platform station and yard and assumed an ironstone branch survived into the 60s and that the curve was built at Battersby so summer Saturday trains could be run Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium 31A Posted January 8, 2016 RMweb Premium Share Posted January 8, 2016 Right chaps, firstly a huge thanks for the thoughts and advice so far. Playing around a bit I have made a few possible changes. Here goes:- 1. I have removed the 3 way point in favour of large radius. The code 75 is asymmetric and the turnout to the goods yard was 36". The larger radius will offer better running. 2. Moved the goods facilities to the right a bit 3. I have moved the station building from the end to the departure platform facing the public 4. Wall and gated the goods yard - were they in rural areas? 5. Is the cattle dock in the best place - directly opposite the messy coal yard? It’s about 23 cm between, so a big yard space but still? I am trying to keep enough space in front of the goods shed awning for a wagon to be able to manoeuvre and reverse its trailer to the shed dock without driving over the long back siding. 6. Added the foot bridge which I had omitted on the previous plans (possibly overkill but i have a gorgeous nickle silver etched kit so its a must). My thoughts on passenger operations were that the train would arrive on the bottom platform, the passengers would get off and the engine would run around its train. It would then pull the coaches back across the lines to the departure line and set the coaches back. The crew would then persuade the guard to buy the tea's and sarnies from the tea room, roll their cig's and wait for departure some time later. I have been trying to avoid 'wrong line running' and facing points which I have been told are cardinal sins. I am not really sure what that kick back siding off the engine shed point is for beyond a solitary loco coal wagon. The cleaner could shovel the coal straight from the wagon to the back of the coal staithe more easily than if the wagon were parked on the engine shed road. I thought its where cripples could be dumped, possibly a small crane (D&S one?), a strengthening coach should it be needed or maybe an extra loco parked up? Operation would be easier if i reversed the whole engine shed and siding around but that would be another facing point onto the arrivals (down) line and I am already sining with the facing crossover on the viaduct... The extra loop created with the viaduct crossover does make working that siding easier though. The way it stands (16’ version), I can now use the 'outer loop' to shunt (with a Black 5, arguably the greatest engine of all time and my test engine for planning) 2 1/2 Mk1's (my standard unit of measurement) without having to have a clear road on the traverser deck to back onto. The 40cm storage roads on the fiddleyard give me that manoeuvrability. The most the outer loop will take without fouling the crossovers is 3 Mk1's. I wish that outer loop could handle the 4 Mk1’s which is the max length the traverser deck can hold (with a MT tender engine: Hall/B1/Black 5) and the yard stick I am using but that would mean adding baseboards and that’s a sticky road to go down… where would it end? Well obviously it was worth the time just to see what an extra board would do and here we have it. Your thoughts please gents on all aspects… Hi Dale, this looks like an interesting project and already has quite a North Eastern flavour to it! Just a quick comment if I may, in a constructive manner I hope. I'm sure you are right to avoid facing points as much as possible; the Victorian railway companies would normally have done this. With this in mind, if you reverse the directions of the 'running' crossovers, you will reduce the number of facing points. In other words, make the facing crossover on your plan trailing, and make the trailing crossover facing. As it is, a train arriving on the upper platform will encounter three facing points - first crossover, yard entrance, and second crossover. If you reverse the direction of the crossovers, it will only encounter one - the second crossover where it can be routed into either platform. Similarly, as drawn, a train departing from the lower platform will encounter two facing points - the first and second crossovers, whereas if the crossovers are reversed, the only facing point would be the first crossover. This would also avoid having a facing connection into the goods yard which I think would be unusual, and when you come to consider signalling it will simplify the arrangements which will probably make your life easier, and the North Eastern Railway would have appreciated that, too! Cheers, Steve Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold russ p Posted January 8, 2016 RMweb Gold Share Posted January 8, 2016 At Whitby the connection to the yard was facing Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
woodenhead Posted January 8, 2016 Share Posted January 8, 2016 Longer baseboards are nice but resist the urge to grow the trains. The longer the train that uses the station then generally the more grand the terminus becomes plus associated services unless it is an excursion station. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dale Posted January 8, 2016 Author Share Posted January 8, 2016 Thyanks again for the time to post gents, its appreciated. I will have a look at the shunting issue just now but in response to the facing points comments, again I appreciate the advice. In this case I think I have not made the plan clear enough but it was my thought that trains would arrive on the down line, being the line closest to the public. That would present just the single viaduct crossover as a facing point and the rest trailing. Stock would be moved to the Up line (closest the station buildings) for departures. I have placed the buildings thus for people seldom wait around on a platform for an arriving train. The Hornby waiting room building provides some shelter for Edith Pew as she waits for her husband Horatio Pew to arrive on the 14:30 Whitby train but for the ladies and gents awaiting the return service 14:48 Ingleby - Whitby they have the benefit of more substantial shelter. I didnt invesage trains arriving at either platform as the norm. I may have the wrong end of the operational stick though..? D. PS: I also thought that milk would be loaded by churn as they are dropped off at the station and so 'what ever the NER called their siphon's' would be parked at the station end of the Up platform for the early morning train. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dale Posted January 8, 2016 Author Share Posted January 8, 2016 Longer baseboards are nice but resist the urge to grow the trains. The longer the train that uses the station then generally the more grand the terminus becomes plus associated services unless it is an excursion station. Very good point and well recieved. The fiddleyard for this layout is already built (and its a beasty) so my trains are limited to 1.4m. That may well be a V3 with 5 suburbans or and L1 with 4 plus tail traffic. I use Mk1's as a reference but cant see much use for them on Ingleby. I will likely run some Gresley/Thompson gangwayed stock behind a B1 on specials but for the most part it will be the domain of the new Hornby Gresley and Thompson suburban coaches and tank engines. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold russ p Posted January 8, 2016 RMweb Gold Share Posted January 8, 2016 In reality one platform would be used most of the time but at certain times two trains may be present and the second needs to be used. This was how Whitby worked in the 70s and Yarmouth still does today. I think departure and arrival platforms were at some large termini like Euston Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
woodenhead Posted January 8, 2016 Share Posted January 8, 2016 I think it's your choice on arrival/departure platforms or either platform being used. Operationally, having to shunt all trains from one platform to the other adds interest, you don't need as much in the way of waiting rooms etc on the arrival platform and it simplifies signalling. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dale Posted January 8, 2016 Author Share Posted January 8, 2016 Well I have had a go at signalling it for both platforms to be used. no doubt Mike will be along shortly to explain what a huge mess I have made but it's a start... I have also added some platform buildings, the pway hut and placed the stables. This is a building which is often missed on BLT models. By my period its probably derelict or converted into a garage. I do wonder about the signal box... is it where it should be? It doesnt look quite right where it is. D. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
clachnaharry Posted January 8, 2016 Share Posted January 8, 2016 That's looking good. What is the purpose of the disk between the two starter signals? The bottom platform starter signal will refer to the route across the crossover. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dale Posted January 8, 2016 Author Share Posted January 8, 2016 That's looking good. What is the purpose of the disk between the two starter signals? The bottom platform starter signal will refer to the route across the crossover. Thanks. The shunt arm is for access to the kick back siding and engine shed roads. The ground signal is for the cross over. It was my best guess on how to signal it. I also need to add a cosmetic trap point on the engine shed point to protect the running line. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold russ p Posted January 8, 2016 RMweb Gold Share Posted January 8, 2016 I would move the outer crossover further in and have the inner home direct to platforms and the yard Two same height dolls with a main and calling on arms and a smaller one to the right for the yard. A small stop signal with a ground mounted disc would be better for the yard exit or to the headshunt and a disc to leave the headshunt. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
clachnaharry Posted January 8, 2016 Share Posted January 8, 2016 Thanks. The shunt arm is for access to the kick back siding and engine shed roads. The ground signal is for the cross over. It was my best guess on how to signal it. I also need to add a cosmetic trap point on the engine shed point to protect the running line. But that is my point. The bottom platform starter must signal the route over the crossover in order to get to the correct line. I think the left hand disc duplicates this function. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dale Posted January 8, 2016 Author Share Posted January 8, 2016 But that is my point. The bottom platform starter must signal the route over the crossover in order to get to the correct line. I think the left hand disc duplicates this function. I see your 'point' (i will get my coat)... So if an engine was shunting about the place and it had trundled along toe down line from the outer loop, it trails that crossover and has to proceed far enough (beyond the engine shed point) to recieve the main platform starter signal if it wishes, as part of its planned shunting manouver, to use that crossover? That makes sense and reduces the number of ground signals. But what happens if, let's say a wagon is sat at the stops on Platform 2. The engine is sat on the down line in the outer loop. The Inner Home calling on signal (shunt signal?) is taken off and the engine wobbles (its a Bachmann 64xx) along to get its errant truck. once coupled up there is a ground disc for the engine release crossover. *** warning, idiotic question *** The disc is taken off. Does this mean the road is set to diverge now and you can go, that the road remains set to the down line as it was but your now clear to move again, or alternatively your are now clear to move but the road will be decided by the outcome to the current game of Knify Knify being played by the signalman and his curiously sinister cat? As you can tell, signals and points confuse the hell out of me. D. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dale Posted January 8, 2016 Author Share Posted January 8, 2016 I have had a mess around with the signals and as Russ suggested, put a small arm and disc in for exiting the goods yard. I also moved a crossover out a bit and changed the inner home signal. I am now well and truely confused.com and will go bury my head in an ostreitch. D. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dale Posted January 8, 2016 Author Share Posted January 8, 2016 Just for Scotty Dog, I have re-worked the existing plan as a single track branch line. My initial feeling is that this looks very nice (and more dare i say it, ??prototypical??) but will it entertain Joe and his Public, their kids and their slightly senile gran whom they have been guilted into bringing to the show? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.