ejstubbs Posted January 8, 2016 Share Posted January 8, 2016 As you can tell, signals and points confuse the hell out of me. Would it help at all if, as suggested by 31A, you were to flip the crossover next to the signal box to be a facing crossover, and flip the crossover towards the bridge to be a trailing crossover? That way trains can still arrive in to and depart from either platform, but you don't have the same possibility of confusion/complication around the platform 2 starter. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dale Posted January 8, 2016 Author Share Posted January 8, 2016 Thanks for your thoughts ejstubbs. The more contribution whilst this plan is being thrashed about the better. If I swap the crossover that's in front of the signal box to a facing cross over it makes shunting the yard difficult for an arriving freight. The J27 crosses the viaduct on the down line (right line running) and arrives at the station on platform 2 as it should. it would then run around its train left in the station loop) and detach the brake van, propelling it to the stops on platform 1. Moving into the yard, it would then compile the outgouing wagons, shunting them into a train being built on platform 1. The arrived stock would then be marshelled into the goods yard and the engine would rejoin its train to depart. At least thats how I see it happening, i may well be wrong. in order to do all that, the cross over infront of the signal box needs to remain as is, otherwise the shunt from platform 2 will have to go all the way out to the viaduct crossover. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dale Posted January 8, 2016 Author Share Posted January 8, 2016 Just so we are all singing from the same hymn sheet I have annotated a copy of the current working double track plan below. The same notes can be applied to the single track version too. The jury is very much out on which is the better option. The single track version sits better with me but to run the kind of services which will entertain Joe, his kids and their smelly gran, the off scene block section would have to be 50 yards long and end at Ingleby Junction where several lines diverge and can produce the number of trains tooing and froing from Ingleby in such quick succession. The double track terminus has trains crossing at the same time, a spectacle everyone loves. A single track alternative could be to have a pilot at Ingleby shunting the goods yard to keep something moving when the exiting train is perceived to be in the block section but again, that's not prototypical either. Would a station of this size have a pilot or would the train engines shunt the yard - no i suspect. D> Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ejstubbs Posted January 9, 2016 Share Posted January 9, 2016 If I swap the crossover that's in front of the signal box to a facing cross over it makes shunting the yard difficult for an arriving freight. At least thats how I see it happening, i may well be wrong. in order to do all that, the cross over infront of the signal box needs to remain as is, otherwise the shunt from platform 2 will have to go all the way out to the viaduct crossover. So long as you have a reason for keeping the crossovers as they currently are then that makes sense. I thought I would bring it to your attention because you didn't seem to respond to J31's original post about swapping them over in order to reduce the number of facing points traversed in each direction on each route. You might be able to get round the operational difficulties you describe by having a station pilot shunt the yard - per your post of 22:26 yesterday. You have a loco shed in the layout, which suggests that there would be a loco resident at the station for some purpose. That might be easier to justify in the double track version of your layout, since you seem to want to have fairly busy traffic flows which would suggest sufficient work to keep a pilot busy. (It might also allow you do dispense with the loco release crossover, with the pilot shunting the empty carriage stock if required.) How prototypical all that would be I couldn't say - maybe someone with more knowledge of BR(NE) practice could comment? I think there may also still be a discussion to be had about whether the goods yard access shouldn't be trailing for trains departing right line, rather than facing. Again, it would take informed comment from others to get closer to a resolution of that question. Bottom line, though, is that you can always apply the "it's my train set" rule! Overall, I think it looks like an interesting plan and I would look forward to following its development on here if you go ahead with it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dale Posted January 9, 2016 Author Share Posted January 9, 2016 The loco shed is there to house the branch loco. A tank engine, likely a J72 which takes a non-gangwayed 2-3 coach set out from Ingleby in the morning with the milk wagon as tail traffic. It then runs back and forth to Ingleby all day. There is no reason why it couldn't also do some shunting/sorting of the yard between trains... My current thinking is that I am growing more fond of the single track version (see below) but I still worry that at 20' Scenic+8'FY, an exhibition manager is going to want to see more action and more 'smiles per foot' of floor space than the single line could offer. I am not sure what you mean about the goods yard access. Trains do not depart from the goods yard directly, but are marshalled into a complete train on platform 1. The only access or egress from the goods yard would be under shunt only signals. in the single line version of the plan the access/egress is facing/trailing dependent on the direction of travel but in the double track version, with traffic on the up line moving from left to right, the yard exit line is trailing. It would only be a facing point where a shunt activity is using the up line in the wrong direction. We may have crossed wires or I may just be missing what you are patiently trying to explain to me. I really do appreciate the time taken to try and help me develop this plan. D. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold russ p Posted January 9, 2016 RMweb Gold Share Posted January 9, 2016 I prefer the double track version. You only need one signal for platform routing as I said earlier. Where you have the inner home on the outbound ( up) line that needs changing to a ground disc. Have you thought of having a disused ironstone branch or old mine. Another theme you could do is Stokesley town, and assume stokesley was served by a dead end branch similar to Guisborough Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
clachnaharry Posted January 9, 2016 Share Posted January 9, 2016 I prefer the double track version. It just makes it a bit unusual. If you add a backstory such a local race course you could add a race weekend to your timetable with the yard cleared for coach stabling, and a very intensive but asymmetric service. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dale Posted January 9, 2016 Author Share Posted January 9, 2016 I prefer the double track version. You only need one signal for platform routing as I said earlier. Where you have the inner home on the outbound ( up) line that needs changing to a ground disc. Have you thought of having a disused ironstone branch or old mine. Another theme you could do is Stokesley town, and assume stokesley was served by a dead end branch similar to Guisborou Stokesley - now that Russ, i like, i like it a lot. I could lay on special welltrol's for delivering the local pikey caravans seriously though its a top idea. Consider the name changed sir, you will be mentioned in dispatches! A very good friend has built a layout of Guisbrough which is now in the custodianship of my local MRC and its a lot of fun to operate (despite the questionable Kadee couplings). I still remain undecided on single or double track but have been playing around with the single as it's easier to get my head around. I have reverded the engine shed road so the J72 now has the two branch coaches parked up in the siding next to the shed. Its easier now for the engine to come off shed, take out its coaches and then back down onto platform 2 to couple up to the milk wagon for the first train of the day. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold russ p Posted January 9, 2016 RMweb Gold Share Posted January 9, 2016 Glad to be of service! If you stick with the current plan use the second crossover as the running line into both platforms , the advance starter or section signal would normally be 'inside' the home signal. If you imagine the station to be somewhere behind the green at Stokesley, the line would need to cross the river to reach the real line, so your plan works a treat Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dale Posted January 9, 2016 Author Share Posted January 9, 2016 Since Russ prefers it, this is the story so far for the double track... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold russ p Posted January 9, 2016 RMweb Gold Share Posted January 9, 2016 No no I was just saying I liked it!! The last single track plan you did would probably give you better operating pleasure . Otherwise you will either have to put a run round loop in the yard somewhere or have a lot of strange moves to shunt the yard. This might give you a flavour of Stokesley https://youtu.be/5ClQvdaQ5E8 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mightbe Posted January 9, 2016 Share Posted January 9, 2016 I like the single track--more plausible as you say. I wonder though, would it make more sense to run the primary line into the lower platform? I.e., move the embankment line to the other side of the branch main and flipping the release crossover (and possibly others?). This would allow a train to arrive while a goods train is being made up in the 'upper' platform without the two operations conflicting each other. Now, the inbound loco would have to wait for the goods train to clear before being released and running the return service, but that's not an extreme issue. The freight loco could take a momentary pause to move the coaches somewhere else (probably to the new embankment headshunt) while the passenger locomotive moves 'out of the way' for the coaches to be replaced in the same platform. (If that was done I might consider moving the station to the end of the tracks, perpendicular to the line.) Another alternative is to create a more-or-less dedicated loop for arriving and departing goods trains, on the 'north' side of the line. Personally I'd not so tempted by this option. Quentin EDIT: I had a play and combined the two, adding an optional third platform (P1 or P3--take your pick--for excursions, races, whatever). I find it helpful to see how it'd be in real life, so I did roughly scale lengths and used P4 B8s, C10s, etc. just for show--for the same reason I omitted the grid. You can compress it to your needs/incorporate its ideas into your own design freely. Notes: the first crossover (arriving into the station from the left) would be used for goods arrivals and goods runarounds, etc, the second would be to access P3, runarounds for P2, and for releasing arriving goods trains. (I forgot about the engine shed area, sorry) I flipped it to make access more sensible, and to remove the risk of a facing connection Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dale Posted January 9, 2016 Author Share Posted January 9, 2016 No no I was just saying I liked it!! The last single track plan you did would probably give you better operating pleasure . Otherwise you will either have to put a run round loop in the yard somewhere or have a lot of strange moves to shunt the yard. This might give you a flavour of Stokesley https://youtu.be/5ClQvdaQ5E8 Thanks for the link Russ but sadly the wifi on the rig i am working on is like 56k dial up of old. I can send emails most of the time and just about upload these .jpg's but I have a snowball's chance in hell of streaming youtube. We are also getting battered by the weather just now which isnt helping com's. It is giving me loads of time to play with the track plan though so silver linings and clouds eh? I have now played around with the suggestions from mightbe (many thanks) and have the following: Does the bay road make things too complicated, is it value added or gilding the lilly? not sure... One thing the bay road plan does add is watering for loco's. When an engine has run around its train it can take water on directly from the water colum at the engine shed. A nice unplanned bonus. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mightbe Posted January 10, 2016 Share Posted January 10, 2016 I like the idea of the bay, but the access to the engine shed isn't as good for the other tracks. It does open up operations at peak though if you want to keep it. You might want to move that middle crossover a bit to the left (straddling the join) to allow longer goods trains (it wouldn't affect passenger operations to do so for 90% of the time--also, see below) I see how you can save 10 quid by the way--by removing that extra headshunt In the same neighborhood, the turnout to the goods yard would be blocked by a train being made up in the reception/departure loop. I'd move it right up next to the rightmost crossover and squeeze out the maximum length on that loop--right now it looks like 6' and 4' usable lengths, L and R loops respectively, but both can be 5' for optimal efficiency (which is a good size anyway, since it excludes the loco length). Right now it's the 'limiting' factor for train length and lengthening it means you have that 2nd/3rd platform accessible to passenger trains at the same time. You could even expand both loops by using up the 6" at the far left if there's nothing specific planned for that area (when relocating that turnout, make sure you can can get about 4 wagons+an 0-6-0 tender loco clear of those points--it might need to be lengthened but I'm not sure) I'm convinced this layout could be quite pleasing to operate--and I'm not even an operations kinda guy! I just like designing optimised track plans so I can gaze at them! Haha Quentin Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dale Posted January 10, 2016 Author Share Posted January 10, 2016 I like the idea of the bay, but the access to the engine shed isn't as good for the other tracks. It does open up operations at peak though if you want to keep it. You might want to move that middle crossover a bit to the left (straddling the join) to allow longer goods trains (it wouldn't affect passenger operations to do so for 90% of the time--also, see below) I see how you can save 10 quid by the way--by removing that extra headshunt In the same neighborhood, the turnout to the goods yard would be blocked by a train being made up in the reception/departure loop. I'd move it right up next to the rightmost crossover and squeeze out the maximum length on that loop--right now it looks like 6' and 4' usable lengths, L and R loops respectively, but both can be 5' for optimal efficiency (which is a good size anyway, since it excludes the loco length). Right now it's the 'limiting' factor for train length and lengthening it means you have that 2nd/3rd platform accessible to passenger trains at the same time. You could even expand both loops by using up the 6" at the far left if there's nothing specific planned for that area (when relocating that turnout, make sure you can can get about 4 wagons+an 0-6-0 tender loco clear of those points--it might need to be lengthened but I'm not sure) I'm convinced this layout could be quite pleasing to operate--and I'm not even an operations kinda guy! I just like designing optimised track plans so I can gaze at them! Haha Quentin Morning (evening for the colonials? ) I am not a fan of points straddling baseboard joins, it creates a potential for problems which i will try my best to avoid unless i absolutely have to. We shall see... I will try and play around with the access road into the goods yard though as I see exactly what you mean about blocking the entrance to the yard if you make a train up in the goods loop. I originally expected goods trains to be made up in the platform roads but having swapped the priority side over, a wealth of better operation has opened up so let me see what can be done as I nurse my morning coffee (and headache). D. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mightbe Posted January 10, 2016 Share Posted January 10, 2016 Ah, I meant to say that the entire crossover be bisected between the two turnouts--I'm similarly leery of cutting a turnout in two! (it should add about a foot of space to the goods loop) P.S.--'tis the very early morning here in Cincinnati. 3:00 AM. I need to be in bed at some point! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jwealleans Posted January 10, 2016 Share Posted January 10, 2016 You are of course aware that Stokesley signal box still stands, now in a garden and painted a truly awful shade of yellow? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dale Posted January 10, 2016 Author Share Posted January 10, 2016 Well after tweeking a few bits I think we have a better plan. The NER was certainly more focused on its freight operations and that is reflected I think? I have put the coal bunker and a lamp outside of the signalman's cabin. I am not sure about the lamp as feel it might cause a viewing problem at night when the Signalman looks toward the viaduct and gets blinded. The real point of these additions was to mark the maximum position of a brake van when forming up goods trains on that road. I have kept the original goods yard entry road as it now forms a handy loop. I am not convinced it's necessary but i dont want to remove it and then wish i hadnt... your thoughts? As you will see I have got 10 assorted wagons in there plus the brake which is just about the most my traverser deck will take anyway so all is good. A Thornaby class 37 waits to back onto the train while the local Middlesbrough shuttle sits in the bay road. A G5 with push-pull stock or later, a class 101 2 car DMU maybe? Concerns about access to the engine shed are all good. Visiting engines wont be taking coal on here. The shed is solely for the use of the branch engine which is swapped out from Thornaby each week. The shed'd water tower can swing across to the main line as visiting engines will be taking on water here though. Apologies for the erant buffer stop at the end of the bottom platform - forgot to delete it. (the codes are relative to Dave Franks EXCELLENT white metal bufferstop range). What do you thnk folks? We getting there? D. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dale Posted January 10, 2016 Author Share Posted January 10, 2016 You are of course aware that Stokesley signal box still stands, now in a garden and painted a truly awful shade of yellow? JW... I was entirely unaware that Stokesley even had a station... but that should come as no surprise to you my friend. Ignorance was bliss but now I am worried my plan will bare no resemblance to the prototype and I shall subsequently be shunned (more than usual). I suppose it will now have to be Stokesley Town or Stokelsey Road so I am not slated...? If it were staying at home it wouldn't be an issue but with ambitions to take it on the road, i can see it being a problem? And Quintin, go to your bed man (or someone else's, providing she is buxom and willing) D. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dale Posted January 10, 2016 Author Share Posted January 10, 2016 In case anyone was interested, I have tacked on below 'the Grand Scheme', being my 2 for the price of 1 idea... Dursley Mills has its baseboards constructed and scenic work is underway. The Fiddleyard is halfway there and will be finished on my next leave. Dursley Mills and the FY can be fully errected in my train shed, or Stokelsey without the yard will also fit but alas I cant get the NE layout and FY up together. I have the control system built and have broken the layouts into 4 power districts, two for each layout so a trip on DM wont shut down Stokesley. One of the nice things about it is that a non region specific service, say a 2-6-0 4MT could take a mixed goods train out of DM, run off scene and through the fiddleyard and on to Stokesley to be operated there, simply by handing the engine off the the Stokelsey cab (NCE ProCab). Will it all work... we shall see but in this time of austerity, 2 layouts and one van has got to be appealing for an exhibition manager? D. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold russ p Posted January 10, 2016 RMweb Gold Share Posted January 10, 2016 Hi Dale, are you on an oil rig or something as I would have thought Middlesbrough would have better internet than that by now! I prefer last nights version ,in reality the bay platform would never get used. I like the station building and the goods yard being together a bit like brotton . If I get chance I'll scetch a signalling diagram and photograph it for you. Oh the other thing I thought was how about a level crossing before the bridge for the road to Hutton Rudby. You could also have a road bridge taking the A172 over the river Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
clachnaharry Posted January 10, 2016 Share Posted January 10, 2016 I think you are going in the wrong direction and the track plan has gone from interesting and unusual, with some challenges to make operating interesting, to something that looks a bit of a cliche and boring to operate. But thats just my opinion of course! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dale Posted January 10, 2016 Author Share Posted January 10, 2016 Thanks for the comments Clach, its easy to get caught up and drive the wrong way. Since discovering that Stokesley did have a real station I have been working on things a bit more and would like to offer the latest plan for consideration. Its working very much on the premise that this was once a through station as Stokesley was, but like the real place, its been truncated and is now a terminus. I have tried to move things around to represent the real place more so it's at least a shadow of the prototype. I have also moved the bridge off the platforms where it was silly, and am using it as a foot bridge over the lines instead. The footpath runs up from the drovers bridge and along the bottom of the embankment, next to Valley Farm. I have also moved the goods yard right to make better use of the space/sidings and free up some scenic space on the far left. The Bay road has also gone. Stokesley didn't have one and it offered nothing operationally. The engine shed has been returned to a trailing crossover as it should be on the down line. At the moment I have put all the crossover's in as trailing crossover's as they should be if this were a through station. Does this work? Would BR have lifted and relaid pointwork when the line was truncated as a terminus? Back on track or going off piste completely? (Russ, I am on the Floatel Superior - is an accomodation barge on the Solan project. We are commissioning a new rig for Premier Oil off Shetland, though at the moment we are disconnected and floating about the Atlantic getting battered by the storms, hence my free time to work on the plan). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
clachnaharry Posted January 10, 2016 Share Posted January 10, 2016 I like the premise, but the end result looks a bit contrived, Why would there have been an engine shed there when it was a through line? If they put in stabling facilities after truncation, I doubt if they would include a shed. I also doubt if the engine release crossover would have been added, when you can just shunt back and use the existing crossovers. If you make these changes. I think you end up with an interesting station with a main platform used for arrivals and most departures, and a second platform which can be used for departures when the timetable is busier. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mightbe Posted January 10, 2016 Share Posted January 10, 2016 Release crossover: 1965. From Disused-Stations. As you can see, the line was effectively singled at some point before 1963--the overgrown track on the right is the headshunt (curiously omitted on some OS maps, presumably because it was taken out of use but not removed), to the left under the hideous mess of foliage is the other running line. And now from the other direction. Quentin Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.