Goods yard options: please help me choose

[Satan's Goldfish]

What about swapping the single slip and the Rh point nearest the crane in plan 2? Frees up space for the goods shed, should still have space for the crane next to 'milage'.

[ejstubbs]

Latest iteration of the design:

 

[imt]

I think I'd do the same thing with the cattle dock.  That is move the point on the middle road left to meet a single(?) slip to the cattle dock and right to the mileage.  More room for mileage or maybe restore the side/end loading facilities.  The crane needs to take a walk leftwards too?

 

You are developing a cracking narrow station there which may well inspire others with not much space.

 

About the only thing left to make space is to narrow the distance between the middle and platform road to "standard" 6ft (45mm?) and widen the gap to the goods road that way, but this means some butchery on the points (which look like standard Peco?).  Whether that would be worth it is debatable.

[YesTor]

Whichever plan you go for I would try and smooth out some of those curves, particularly those "S" shaped sidings (coal siding and engine shed siding in particular on the initial plans), which to me eye look a tad unrealistic.  I realize that you have a minimum amount of space, but if and where possible I would aim to incorporate slightly larger/longer points and smoother curves, particularly in the sidings.  Overall that will result in less of a train set look and more of a railway appearance.

[ejstubbs]

All layouts are inevitably a compromise.  The curves in this layout are a compromise that I am willing to accept given the space constraints, and the types of operation that I wish to achieve.  I'm trying to fit a double track terminus that will take five coach trains (at a push) into a 10ft x 2ft space.  It's always going to look more 'train set' than railway!

 

I have investigated the use of larger radius points and reluctantly ruled them out.  The loco shed and coal siding have been tweaked multiple ways.  The way they are now on the plan is about the least fixed element of the whole thing but their final configuration will still, inevitably, be constrained by space.  The worst of the train set curves at the exit to the fiddle yard (which are, in fact, setrack curves) will largely be hidden by the scenic break.  What that scenic break will be has yet to be decided, and may or may not allow a more realistic configuration for the coal siding and loco shed.  (As it happens, though, I quite like the bendy sidings; it softens the feel a bit, which I think looks extremely linear otherwise.)

 

The seven plans I have posted here are just the tip of the iceberg: I have around 200 variations and interations of AnyRail plans to fit in this space on file!  I'm about to start prototyping some of the track configurations to check that they work, while I wait for the space to come available so that I can at last start constructing my layout.

 

Bottom line: rule one.  Ultimately, I'm the only person that I have to please (this layout is never going to be exhibited), and I know the balance I want to strike between realism and operation.

 

Thanks for taking an interest, though.  It honestly is appreciated, and it does help me to review and confirm the decisions I've made to date.

[Chimer]

[snip] The loco shed and coal siding have been tweaked multiple ways.  The way they are now on the plan is about the least fixed element of the whole thing but their final configuration will still, inevitably, be constrained by space.  The worst of the train set curves at the exit to the fiddle yard (which are, in fact, setrack curves) will largely be hidden by the scenic break.  What that scenic break will be has yet to be decided, and may or may not allow a more realistic configuration for the coal siding and loco shed. [snip]

 

On that point, I'm intrigued by that empty 3' x 1' space (below the engine shed and coal road in the latest iteration).  That's where most of my goods yard would be, at about 15 degrees off the line of the platforms ...... you did allow a tiny bit of track to stray in there in one of your earlier plans so maybe it's not entirely out of the question?  The loco shed, a goods shed and associated bits and pieces in that area would partially view block the sharp turn to the fiddle yard, especially if your operating arrangements give you anything other than a bird's eye view of your world.

[ejstubbs]

The reason for not putting the main body of the goods yard there is that it would need to be shunted from the wrong direction.  There is no direct access to the run-round loop for arriving trains (for the purposes of this argument we can assume that this is not going to change) so the goods yard has to be shunted from the departure road after the loco has run round.  Having the goods yard the other way round would mean propelling the whole train back on to the departure road, then pulling forward again into the loop before shunting can begin - and the loco would still need to run round before departing.

 

To give trailing access to the goods yard for arriving trains from the main platform road you'd need a turnout half way along the main platform and a diamond/slip in the middle of the run-round loop.  That looks ugly and unlikely to me.  Another problem is that the yard can only really fan out on the wider baseboard at the left, which actually limits the lengths of the sidings you could have.  You also end up not using potentially useful space at the front of the longer, narrower baseboard, which is where most of the visual focus of the layout is.

 

I have experimented in AnyRail doing it this way but I didn't like any of the plans that resulted.  I decided that, for me, it was preferable to use that space for a bit of scenic interest, which can also contribute to hiding the exit to the fiddle yard - and helping to conceal the tight curves.

 

Of course, all this might change once I get the boards assembled and start laying out track!

 

Edit: below is a draft of what the plan might look like with the goods yard in the bottom left, retaining similar overall facilities to the previous options:

 

 

As I see it, there's less room for the scenic break, and an empty space right in front of the hypothetical viewer that would be difficult  to put anything interesting in.  But I'm open to suggestions!

[Chimer]

Ooops, hadn't spotted the issue about not being able to arrive in the goods loop .... but as you're open to suggestions I might have a play tonight to see if that can be done in a "non-ugly" way.  But of course that won't answer your point about using the space for scenery instead of railway.

 

Cheers

 

Chris

[ejstubbs]

I had a "Hang on a minute - why didn't I think of that before?" moment the other day while diddling about with yet more variations to this plan.  I suddenly realised that I had a bit of leeway around the station throat that I'd put out of my mind some time back, as well as a bit of wiggle room on the platform length.  Further experimentation indicated that I could take advantage of those to introduce some medium radius points in a few key areas, and also ease the curve leading to the bay road, as well as giving a tad more length to the goods yard.  This is the current favourite of the resulting designs, with the key changes highlighted:

 

 

 

It helps that medium radius points barely cost more than short radius ones.  (The three of them that I'd need cost less in total than the single slip on its own!)

[Nick Holliday]

I am not sure about the position of the goods shed in the last configuration. Although in some places it was permitted for locos to pass through the shed, but in this case the loco would have to pass continually through to serve the cattle dock and coal siding, and probably stand and reverse inside it. Probably better back on the crane siding, with the crane to the left of the shed.

[ejstubbs]

It's not a 'through' goods shed, the rail side is completely open apart from the canopy (which could easily be omitted if it was felt to be wrong).

 

However, your points made me think a bit, and I came up with the following in quick succession:

 

 

 

 

Still nowhere near decided!

[ejstubbs]

A version of the last one from my previous post, with a bit more thought put in to it.  I'm quite taken with this one:

 

 

Not sure about the location of the weighbridge.  Would vehicles collecting goods from the shed, or stuff being offloaded via the end loading dock, generally need to be weighed?  I can always leave it out as being "off scene".

[Zomboid]

Could you put the station on an angle and use the triangles either side of that for the freight & loco facilities?

[Grovenor]

The weighbridge was usually by the road entrance to the yard.

Regards

[ejstubbs]

Could you put the station on an angle and use the triangles either side of that for the freight & loco facilities?

 

I have looked in to that possibility.  Unfortunately the baseboard is a bit too narrow for that to work while retaining the requirements in terms of passenger train capacity on the platform.  It doesn't help either that Peco's turnouts are 12°; 6° might be better, but then turnouts would be longer which would cause difficulties with the baseboard length available.  I realise that one root cause of the issues is that I'm trying to get 1.136 litres into a pint pot, but those requirements are fairly non-negotiable right now.

 

The weighbridge was usually by the road entrance to the yard.

 

Indeed.  I was just wondering whether a yard might have two road entrances: one for mileage goods requiring weighing on the weighbridge and one for other goods eg 'smalls' that could be weighed in the goods shed.  I've probably got this @rse about elbow and need to do a bit of reading up.

[NCB]

Think the weighbridge was stuck wherever it was most convenient, which gives us modellers a fair amount of leeway. True, with a single yard with just one entrance then it would probably be stuck near the entrance if there was room. But it could be stuck elsewhere.

 

Like the curved crane road in the last plan. Breaks things up a bit.

[Chimer]

This took longer than I thought it might, but I said I would have a go at a non-ugly direct access to the goods loop so you could shunt a yard on the left before running round ....

 

 

I haven't developed the yard, which will come off the track leading down at eight o'clock, the short siding parallel to the approach tracks is for losing the brake van while you shunt.  The slip is a single slip so all running round, passenger or goods, uses the crossover.  All points are short streamline and the approach curves are third and fourth radius setrack.

 

Then I wondered about angling it and using curved points for the first crossover, which gives a bit of transition and a bit more space ....

 

 

 

This has the yard a bit more developed, but I've lost the engine shed for the moment - it could still come off the goods arrival road, or maybe the bay platform road, I think.

 

Very enjoyable playing around with other people's ideas, to confuse them further ........   

 

Cheers

 

Chris

[ejstubbs]

Thanks, some useful food for thought there.