21ft and rising... track plan feedback sought...

[YesTor]

 

 

 

 

 

Okay, essentially a couple of ideas for my proposed 22ft x 1ft layout with added fiddle yard.  

Prime objectives:

1. The inclusion for both freight and passenger traffic
2. Fluid track arrangement, gentle curves
3. Not too cramped with regard to track/free space ratio, ie. not to fill every available space with track
4. Space for shunting, marshalling, longterm operating interest
5. Run-around loops for operational interest
6. Reasonably prototypical track arrangement
7. Long(ish) trains

 

I'm already conscious that I may have broken rule no. 3 already and included a little too much track, so a few opinions in this respect would be appreciated.

Also, I'm not too sure just how prototypical my plan actually is - the plan being mostly a composition of ideas from (loosely) prototype track plans and an injection of a little general common sense (hopefully).  The layout will be based in the current (post-2000) era.

One other niggle is that there is no designated space for stabling/refuelling locomotives, which I would have quite liked to have been able to include, although my line of thought is that there are hopefully enough sidings/loops to casually park-up idling locomotives between duties.

To my eye, Plan A feels a little more spacious and incorporates slightly more gentle curves at the entrance point to the layout, however Plan B does enable slightly longer loops, along with a little more space at the station end. The only aspects niggling me on Plan B is the sharper and more awkward-looking entrance curve and generally less free baseboard space.  Or perhaps I'm being over-critical in this respect?

Lastly, I'm no expert at track design, so any suggestions, or indeed glaring errors that I may have overlooked, or indeed any not-so-obvious errors, please feel free to shout.  I'm open to suggestions to make improvements etc.

Thanks guys

[DCB]

B looks better to me.

Usual problem with "modern" image layouts is there is far too much track.  Much of the area would have bushes and small trees growing where tracks used to be I guess the passenger facilities would be a single platform served by a Sprinter or Pacer every hour or so.  The loader would probably be just on a single road and the trains 20 or so wagon long  say 16 feet long trains plus loco  so you would probably probably get away with 3 points.  For instance I think Barnstaple has 2.   If you want operating potential and realism you probably need to go back in time or model a Heritage railway.

[Zomboid]

If you want space for scenery, I'd think carefully about having more than 3 parallel tracks on a 1ft wide board. That would be as far as I'd want to take it myself.

 

You've got space to do a reasonable combination of Alton and the oil terminal at Holybourne there - which you could operationally rip off, even if 3rd rail in Hampshire isn't of interest.

 

That would be a single line, with a pair of sidings at the terminal (I think trains would have to be split to fit into the facility), and then a run-round in the station. Passenger trains cross in the platforms at the station too. It wouldn't support an operation session of several hours, but I reckon a sequence including the oil train could eat over an hour if you're not rushing things. Even longer if you want to go full Mindheim. With modern operation you just won't get much in the way of shunting wherever you go.

 

Obviously the real Alton has steam trains as well, but that would be pushing it a bit. And you could use a different commodity as the freight. To get something to shunt you only have the loading/ unloading facility on one of the sidings, so that's more fiddling around with the freight.

[JDW]

Looking at the plan as you have it, I'd say the station end is the area you need to look at.  If its just a DMU service, what purpose do the other 3 sidings from the front ("passenger") line serve?  If they are for freight or engineers, they really could do with being connected to the sidings rather than just accessible via the main line.  I'd keep the middle diagonal track under the road bridge, delete the three middle sidings as you have them, and replace the second from the top with one accessible from the sidings rather than the main line, otherwise it is all but ususable.  The other two could make way for a better station, for example put the platform behind the front line, with a fence along the back to separate it from the siding(s) behind.  In front could be a modern chain link fence, and the edge of a car park, giving you a space to display some passenger stock without a platform to block the view, as well as giving a bit of scope for non-railway scenery in front of the line - even if it is only a fence and the kerb stones of a car park.  It could also suggest that the station was once bigger, that there used to be more to it off the front of the board.  

[Nearholmer]

A location you might want to look at is Calvert in Bucks.

 

That is on a single line, has a simple unloading (but could equally be loading) terminal, with runround facility, and the single line continues past the platforms of a now closed (but could be re-opened for modelling purposes) station.

 

It is all very simple, and has that "this was once a busier place" look, with extensive shrubbery, that DCB refers to, but is often host to two long trains at once.

 

Kevin

[YesTor]

B looks better to me.

Usual problem with "modern" image layouts is there is far too much track. 

 

 

If you want space for scenery, I'd think carefully about having more than 3 parallel tracks on a 1ft wide board. That would be as far as I'd want to take it myself.

 

You've got space to do a reasonable combination of Alton and the oil terminal at Holybourne there - which you could operationally rip off, even if 3rd rail in Hampshire isn't of interest.

 

Hmmm, yes, you have indeed confirmed my sneaking internal feeling that five tracks within one foot width might just be a bit too much.  I'm going to jiggle the plan around a bit to show three tracks and see how I feel about it.  Ultimately, I suppose it boils down to getting the right balance between realism within the space I have and maintaining operational interest. 

 

I'll look into the prototype at Alton as you have suggested, as studying prototypical plans is always good for opening one's mind to new possibilities, so many thanks for the suggestion.

 

[RJS1977]

I agree that there are probably too many sidings in the station area. Some of the tracks in the loader area could be modelled as overgrown using static grass - that way they appear as 'scenery' most of the time but are still available for an occasional shunting move if need be,

 

As to the stabling point - might there be room for one in the top right hand corner? What's the grey square? If it's a chimney breast or similar obstruction the shed could be modelled in low relief with just enough stabling tracks outside to hold a handful of locos. Again, some of the tracks could be modelled in derelict/overgrown condition.

[YesTor]

Looking at the plan as you have it, I'd say the station end is the area you need to look at.  If its just a DMU service, what purpose do the other 3 sidings from the front ("passenger") line serve?  If they are for freight or engineers, they really could do with being connected to the sidings rather than just accessible via the main line.

 

The passenger service would indeed be mostly DMU served.  The first two adjacent sidings would mainly be for stabling DMUs between duties or overnight etc, and perhaps the occasional engineers train.  Similar with the third siding above, however that would be mainly for miscellaneous freight/engineering stock and perhaps temporary stabling of locomotives between freight duties.

 

I agree with your point about connecting the sidings with the other freight loops, I guess they would be far more usable as such.  Again, I'm gonna have a jiggle around with a slightly new arrangement and see how it looks.  I'll post again when I have something I vaguely like.  

 

[YesTor]

A location you might want to look at is Calvert in Bucks.

 

That is on a single line, has a simple unloading (but could equally be loading) terminal, with runround facility, and the single line continues past the platforms of a now closed (but could be re-opened for modelling purposes) station.

 

It is all very simple, and has that "this was once a busier place" look, with extensive shrubbery, that DCB refers to, but is often host to two long trains at once.

 

Kevin

 

Yup, that's the kind of thing really I am visualizing with regard to background shrubbery etc.  My other thought was that the freight loops and loader could be part of a larger complex 'off scene', so that there's a feel for slightly heavier industry within a reasonably small space.  Ideally I like the arrangement and look of Peak Forest with its various sidings which seem to provide home for wagons and intermediate loco stabling, and with maybe a suggestion of the limestone facility on the back siding/loop.

[YesTor]

I agree that there are probably too many sidings in the station area. Some of the tracks in the loader area could be modelled as overgrown using static grass - that way they appear as 'scenery' most of the time but are still available for an occasional shunting move if need be,

 

As to the stabling point - might there be room for one in the top right hand corner? What's the grey square? If it's a chimney breast or similar obstruction the shed could be modelled in low relief with just enough stabling tracks outside to hold a handful of locos. Again, some of the tracks could be modelled in derelict/overgrown condition.

 

Yup, I've seen sidings modelled as per your suggestion and if done well I very much like the appearance of overgrown sidings on layouts. Even if its mostly the ends of the sidings modelled as such this then leaves the main siding still usable. 

 

Stabling area - indeed there might be space I guess toward the top right above the station area. I'm not too fussed about including a stabling shed, I'd be quite happy with an open-air siding with maybe small fuel facility etc.  The grey square to the extreme left is indeed a chimney.

[JDW]

The passenger service would indeed be mostly DMU served.  The first two adjacent sidings would mainly be for stabling DMUs between duties or overnight etc, and perhaps the occasional engineers train.  Similar with the third siding above, however that would be mainly for miscellaneous freight/engineering stock and perhaps temporary stabling of locomotives between freight duties.

 

I agree with your point about connecting the sidings with the other freight loops, I guess they would be far more usable as such.  Again, I'm gonna have a jiggle around with a slightly new arrangement and see how it looks.  I'll post again when I have something I vaguely like.  

 

 

Its unlikely that many DMUs would be stabled at a terminus station like this one these days, especially on a single track (so presumably not that busy) route, they would likely work in, have a short layover and leave again, multiple units are in too much demand to be sat at the end of long branch lines!  Any that became defective and needed moving out of the way would likely just be dumped in the p-way siding, and in the event of two units arriving and splitting to form two departures, the front one would just leave first, then the second, or vice versa, one would arrive behind the other then couple in the platform.

[Nearholmer]

Rather than have a stabling point for mainline locos, you might consider a home for a privately owned or hired-in shunting engine, to handle the actual loading operation. Would add a bit of interest, and could be very compact; even when industrial locos had the luxury of sheds, many were very small; one I knew, at mountfield in Sussex was a dead ringer for the old airfix, now dapolni think, kit.

[Rivercider]

Some good comments already on your plan(s) which both look pretty good, most prototype yards are long so this looks right.

Before I had read down the thread it already looked to me like a Peak Forest/Buxton almagamation in miniature.

 

I agree the station area looks a bit busy and would take out a siding, and also just go for just stabling, with no fuelling facilities.

There are still a couple of small stations where DMUs are stabled at branch ends, Pwllheli, Treherbert and Rhymney spring to mind,

though none of them have freight facilities nearby.

 

cheers

[Pete the Elaner]

A location you might want to look at is Calvert in Bucks.

 

That is on a single line, has a simple unloading (but could equally be loading) terminal, with runround facility, and the single line continues past the platforms of a now closed (but could be re-opened for modelling purposes) station.

 

It is all very simple, and has that "this was once a busier place" look, with extensive shrubbery, that DCB refers to, but is often host to two long trains at once.

 

Kevin

I instantly recognised that location.  I am not sure whether that is good or bad.

There is a closed station below where the photo was taken from: An island platform with a line each side IIRC. As Nearholmer suggests, you could always model it as if it was still open.

I believe that the best ideas are out there on the real railway. Once you start looking harder, you will see loads of things you never even thought about.

I am modelling a real location on the WCML in a limited space. I did not think this was possible but I have actually found somewhere & I cannot believe how full of oddities it is. I am finding it a fascinating challenge.

[Jongudmund]

To completely mess up your plan, why don't you switch the aggregates loading area with the station? This would mean that a) you would have an excuse for an extra line through your station (which could possibly have your refueling point on as well) to allow goods trains through while a passenger train was parked up, and b) you could then have your fan of sidings with the PO shunter as Nearholmer suggested.  

[YesTor]

To completely mess up your plan, why don't you switch the aggregates loading area with the station? This would mean that a) you would have an excuse for an extra line through your station (which could possibly have your refueling point on as well) to allow goods trains through while a passenger train was parked up...

 

Hmmm, that's not a bad idea at all. Still, at present I do really like the fact that the freight area consists of a couple of loops (as opposed to sidings), but maybe there will be sufficient space for a loop at the right end.  I'll definitely have a play around later with the plan. Thanks.

[Jongudmund]

If you swapped them like for like, then hopefully there would still be space for the loops. You just take out that middle section and move it across with you. If it's a passenger terminus it won't need loops in the station. Effectively you're turning it into a through station even though the only trains going through will be the aggregates trains.

[YesTor]

I agree the station area looks a bit busy and would take out a siding, and also just go for just stabling, with no fuelling facilities.  There are still a couple of small stations where DMUs are stabled at branch ends, Pwllheli, Treherbert and Rhymney spring to mind, though none of them have freight facilities nearby.

 

Thanks, some nice suggestions for locations there.

[YesTor]

Looking at the plan as you have it, I'd say the station end is the area you need to look at.  If its just a DMU service, what purpose do the other 3 sidings from the front ("passenger") line serve?  If they are for freight or engineers, they really could do with being connected to the sidings rather than just accessible via the main line.  I'd keep the middle diagonal track under the road bridge, delete the three middle sidings as you have them, and replace the second from the top with one accessible from the sidings rather than the main line, otherwise it is all but ususable. 

 

Okay, I've amended the plan slightly and removed one of the freight loops and also one of the sidings in the station area - see, I'm getting the hang of this rationalisation malarky    Both sidings are now accessible too from the main loops, so this seems to have increased operating potential somewhat...

 

 

I suppose I could go one step further and open out the two station area sidings and have an island platform with one siding each side.

 

Again any further ideas/suggestions for improvement welcomed.

 

The next plan will hopefully be as Jongudmund suggested, ie. swapping the freight and station facilities around.

[Zomboid]

If you want to go with the island platform, I'd rationalise the headshunt above it to one track.

And what kind of passenger service are you looking at running? Small trains in big platforms is good, but you wouldn't need 8 foot platforms for a 2 car 150, you could get the effect with 4 foot platforms.

[YesTor]

If you want to go with the island platform, I'd rationalise the headshunt above it to one track.

 

Hmmm, yes, I was thinking similar too, however whilst I am conscious that this 'rationalising' approach may well be prototypical, I'm also aware that too much thinning down and the layout is going to very quickly become quite boring to operate.  Also with an island platform I'm going to effectively lose the current station siding as a means of storage for anything but visiting passenger trains.  Still, it might be good to be able to run more than one passenger service into the station at any one time.  Anyway, for now I'll keep that option open.

 

 

And what kind of passenger service are you looking at running? Small trains in big platforms is good, but you wouldn't need 8 foot platforms for a 2 car 150, you could get the effect with 4 foot platforms.

 

Agreed, the platforms are quite long. There will definitely be two-car DMUs, however I also already have a couple of 4-car Class 350 Desiro units - yes, I know what you are thinking, they are electric and require overhead wires - which kind of brings me to my next question!     So, although I guess I already know the answer, I'm still going to ask... How feasible is it to have a single-track terminus 'under the wires'?  I'm not aware of an actual location myself, however maybe someone more knowledgeable can enlighten me?  If electrified single-track is pushing the limits of realism just a bit too far then maybe I'll have to ditch any ideas of electrification, although maybe just the single-track passenger line in would be fine? 

 

But still, returning to the platform length and yes, I guess it could perhaps be reduced to maybe six-foot, that's probably something I'd get a feel for once track begins to be laid and I see what actually works in 3D.

[Zomboid]

Single track electrified termini... Walton on the Naze, Braintree, Kings Lynn & St Albans Abbey come to mind. Pretty sure there's one or more in Glasgow, but I'm not good with place names up there.

Southminster is a good one, as it also has freight facilities.

[Zomboid]

With regard to operational interest, I don't find that more track always equals more interest - for me, having less track means more thinking about what I'm doing. My layout at the moment is a 3-2-2 inglenook, which is 4'6" long. I can play the traditional inglenook game on it, and I can run it more realistically by bringing 2 cars up the main and switching them with the 3 cars on the other two tracks. An operating session takes 20-30 minutes without rushing or artificially extending things which suits the amount of time I have available to operate.

 

That's just my experience, obviously you'll have a different view since the trains I run are pick up freights. I would think about how you will actually operate the layout though - if you're like me and only have a spare 45-60 minutes (or less) at a time to play trains then packing the board with track won't necessarily increase your enjoyment.

 

Also, what do you enjoy? If you're a structure builder, then you'll want space on the layout for structures. If you like creating scenery then the same applies. If you're an operator then you may want something different, and something different again if building rolling stock is your thing.

 

Finally, if you're building a modern freight terminal, pretty much all the track will have a purpose. It never happens in the real world that the designer says "look, there's a bit of flat ground, let's put another siding on it".

 

I'm not saying any of your ideas are wrong, just trying to be thought provoking, since a layout this size is quite an undertaking and you wouldn't want to end up with something unsatisfying.

[Rivercider]

Thanks, some nice suggestions for locations there.

Amongst the locations I suggested Treherbert was a through station at one time and had become a terminus after the route beyond was closed, it only had one remaining platform in use when I photographed it in 1979. 

A 3 car DMU stands in the one remaining platform, the view is looking north towards the stop blocks,

some of the stabling sidings can be seen on the left, 10/9/79

 

cheers

[YesTor]

Single track electrified termini... Walton on the Naze, Braintree, Kings Lynn & St Albans Abbey come to mind. Pretty sure there's one or more in Glasgow, but I'm not good with place names up there.

Southminster is a good one, as it also has freight facilities.

 

Excellent, thanks!  I'll definitely check those locations