Thwaites Park Station

[MattBlack33]

Good afternoon everyone!

 

I am very much a novice and this will be the first layout I have designed, so be gentle as I imagine there will be a lot to sort out before I put track to wood!

 

My idea stems from my love for modern traction and being greedy. In a perfect world I would have a Loftus Road style layout with full freight and passenger rakes passing through, however for the time being, I will have to settle for something less grand (one day perhaps?!). Initially I thought about a terminus station however, this did not meet my 'freight needs' so I expanded this to include a TMD to add an extra dynamic to the layout. Once I have a clearer idea of a do-able track-plan I will expand on my ideas further in the Layout section, but first I would appreciate it if any of the more experienced members of the forum could have a look at the two images below and let me know if they see any glaring problems with my planned layout? I'm particularly clueless with regards to the fiddle yard concept and was wondering if my current yard would suffice? The dimentions of the layout are quite strict, but there is a bit of wiggle room so it could be extended (outwards rather than lengthways though) if needs be.

 

Layout without scenery:

 

 

Layout with scenery:

 

 

I look forward to your input!

[DCB]

Oh well. if no one else want's to comment....

 

It looks good for a set track based layout.  The longest platform at the terminus will take 5 coach trains,  All the platforms are accessible for arrivals and departures the fiddle yard looks  compatible if slightly short compared to the station.

There is no run round for loco hauled stock so you are going to be shunting around that sharp curve, and there is no real access for stock to the bottom storage siding as you need to use the TMD as a headshunt

Personally I would push the TMD approach track and Fuelling point to the left.    I would probably put a crossover so I could depart from the bottom platform as a train arrives at the middle platforms, maybe a double slip in the middle where the bottom next to bottom platform lines diverge.

 

But as drawn I can see it being a lot of fun, look good and be operable in a prototypical manner. Better than 80% of the layouts on here!

[MattBlack33]

Oh well. if no one else want's to comment....

 

It looks good for a set track based layout.  The longest platform at the terminus will take 5 coach trains,  All the platforms are accessible for arrivals and departures the fiddle yard looks  compatible if slightly short compared to the station.

There is no run round for loco hauled stock so you are going to be shunting around that sharp curve, and there is no real access for stock to the bottom storage siding as you need to use the TMD as a headshunt

Personally I would push the TMD approach track and Fuelling point to the left.    I would probably put a crossover so I could depart from the bottom platform as a train arrives at the middle platforms, maybe a double slip in the middle where the bottom next to bottom platform lines diverge.

 

But as drawn I can see it being a lot of fun, look good and be operable in a prototypical manner. Better than 80% of the layouts on here!

Thank you for your response, David. I was beginning to think there wasn't much activity in this particular area of the forum! 

 

I have taken on board your comments and made some changes:

 

 

Layout with bridge removed to see pointwork:

 

 

 

The fiddle yard has been changed/extended slightly to ensure I can run a variety of 5-coach trains if I wish.

 

I have also tried to sort out the shunting arrangments in the TMD area, however I must admit I'm finding this difficult in the current set-up. I think I needed to be a bit clearer with regards to my intentions for the 'freight' aspect. I thought full rakes would be a little too much in terms of space, so the storage sidings would be taking rakes of 3-4 wagons tops, just enough to keep it interesting.

 

The shed and fuelling area have been moved to the left as suggested. My initial worry would be that there would be too much scenery blocking the view of the tracks which I thought could be rectified by having the shed and station in the same spot on my original design. I have compromised a little and will probably look to include a smaller shed in the final layout. I can always have a play around!

 

Again, thanks for your help. I am okay with the modelling side of things, but the whole logistics and layout planning is very much new to me so any help is very much appreciated!

[Zomboid]

Can you get a set track geometry double slip? I've not heard of one.

 

Your FY tracks are very close together. It might work, but you may find it hard to get your hands in there with a train on an adjacent track. Also the two on the left can only be reached by running wrong road from the station, and not at all from the stabling/ TMD (without running into the station first).

[DCB]

Can you get a set track geometry double slip? I've not heard of one.

 

Your FY tracks are very close together. It might work, but you may find it hard to get your hands in there with a train on an adjacent track. Also the two on the left can only be reached by running wrong road from the station, and not at all from the stabling/ TMD (without running into the station first).

I agree the left hand FY road is too close to the wall.  I would remove the left hand FY road and  shift the crossover on the curve closer to the station and put a facing crossover to the last surviving left hand road so all 3 can be used for departures and arrivals.

 

I don't know of anyone who makes a set track Double slip but I had one on my bed layout which is currently buried under Parish Council Audit papers etc and inaccessible, it must be set track geometry as the rest of the layout is set track.  If it is  NLA /obsolete maybe you would have to use streamline 2ft radius points and streamline double slip

[MattBlack33]

Thanks again for the input guys, I've had a play around with my plan today to try and incorporate your suggestions.

 

Can you get a set track geometry double slip? I've not heard of one.

Your FY tracks are very close together. It might work, but you may find it hard to get your hands in there with a train on an adjacent track. Also the two on the left can only be reached by running wrong road from the station, and not at all from the stabling/ TMD (without running into the station first).

 You'll have to bear with my ignorance, but am I not able to mix and match track from different manafacturers? I had created the last plan under this assumption, so I have taken the double slip out on the latest iteration, just in case. I have also played around with the track in order to avoid running wrong road from the station from all of the platforms. The TMD access has been improved also. Let me know what you think.

 

I agree the left hand FY road is too close to the wall.  I would remove the left hand FY road and  shift the crossover on the curve closer to the station and put a facing crossover to the last surviving left hand road so all 3 can be used for departures and arrivals.

 

I don't know of anyone who makes a set track Double slip but I had one on my bed layout which is currently buried under Parish Council Audit papers etc and inaccessible, it must be set track geometry as the rest of the layout is set track.  If it is  NLA /obsolete maybe you would have to use streamline 2ft radius points and streamline double slip

 

Thank you for taking the time to alter my plan. I'm still learning so I hope the below image reflects what you meant?

 

Latest version:

 

 

I have added a bit extra to the length (about 6") which I now think is the absolute limit for the room I have to build this in. This has allowed a longer station and equivalent fiddle yard.

 

I like it, it does what I set out to do, however I can't help but feel that this looks a bit messy. As far as I can see it all works now, but I'm not sure if it can be streamlined at all? I've not gone off a prototype other than it is loosely based on the approach to Bradford Central, so I don't know how realistic this sort of configuration is. Ultimately I am not looking for 100% accuracy, but I would like it to be as close to a realistic layout as humanly possible.

 

Also a quick question about operation. How would a loco-drawn train navigate a terminus like this? For example a class 37 pulling a rake of 5-6 coaches would fit on the platform, however when it pulls away it is essentially running backwards. Would it just continue running backwards or on a real station would there be a way of switching the loco back to the head of the train before it pulls away? I ask as I had the idea of running 'specials' into the station and was curious as to whether it would be possible.

 

Many thanks again!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Zomboid]

You can mix up manufacturers. Generally if you stick to code 100 (or whatever else) then it's all just plug & play.

The thing with double slips is that I don't think either Hornby or Peco make one in their set track geometry. You'd have to use peco streamline to get one, which has a different geometry entirely - different track centres. No reason you couldn't use both, just be aware that it's harder if you mix it up.

Peco and Hornby set track are pretty much interchangable as far as I know, though.

 

As for rationalisation, what era are you planning to model?

[MattBlack33]

You can mix up manufacturers. Generally if you stick to code 100 (or whatever else) then it's all just plug & play.

The thing with double slips is that I don't think either Hornby or Peco make one in their set track geometry. You'd have to use peco streamline to get one, which has a different geometry entirely - different track centres. No reason you couldn't use both, just be aware that it's harder if you mix it up.

Peco and Hornby set track are pretty much interchangable as far as I know, though.

As for rationalisation, what era are you planning to model?

Ah thanks, that makes sense. As I said above I didn't realise that there would be much variation. I'm not planning anything too grand in terms of the track set up with it being my first layout, one step at a time and all that. If the current plan is workable then I'm happy. Maybe down the line I will think about being more adventurous with track (hand-building etc). I'm wanting to focus on developing my scenic-building and loco/stock detailing skills as my priorities. The rest can come in time.

 

I'm planning to model fairly modern (mid-late 2000s). I like the array of liveries for the passenger services and I find myself being drawn to an EWS themed TMD. I know it's not very original, but I like this era for many reasons. I have considered a sectorisation theme and having the TMD as a Railfreight depot, but I think the later era wins.

[DCB]

 

Also a quick question about operation. How would a loco-drawn train navigate a terminus like this? For example a class 37 pulling a rake of 5-6 coaches would fit on the platform, however when it pulls away it is essentially running backwards. Would it just continue running backwards or on a real station would there be a way of switching the loco back to the head of the train before it pulls away? I ask as I had the idea of running 'specials' into the station and was curious as to whether it would be possible.

 

Many thanks again!

Current practice would require a second loco to haul the stock off, this could arrive on the back of the train "Top and Tail" or be a shunting loco, but these are getting very rare. The only one I know of is at Inverness where an 08 pulls the sleeping car stock off the arriving loco and to the carriage maintenance depot as Inverness has no loco release crossovers.  On departure the train loco gingerly backs the sleeper stock into the platform from the carriage maintenance depot, several hours before departure!

[MattBlack33]

Current practice would require a second loco to haul the stock off, this could arrive on the back of the train "Top and Tail" or be a shunting loco, but these are getting very rare. The only one I know of is at Inverness where an 08 pulls the sleeping car stock off the arriving loco and to the carriage maintenance depot as Inverness has no loco release crossovers.  On departure the train loco gingerly backs the sleeper stock into the platform from the carriage maintenance depot, several hours before departure!

 

Thanks David, I've managed to find a few YouTube videos of the whole process. I wouldn't have known where to start looking if you handn't mentioned Inverness so that was a real help. I managed to find a few more videos of other stations that employ a similar routine so I think I have a better idea of how it all works now. 

 

With that in mind, I thought I would try and incorporate a sleeper-like service into my layout in order to add a bit more interest operations-wise and have adapted the station plans to reflect this. As with the Caledonian Sleeper, my yet to be named fictional sleeper splits into different 'legs', so the final train that arrives at Thwaites park is not a full rake of coaches, rather the final leg of 5/6 coaches.

 

Anyway, this is the newest incarnation of my proposed layout:

 

 

As you can see I have tidied up the station approach a little and after watching a few more videos have changed the fiddle-yard significantly to make it less hands on so that I can potentially just load it up and have my locos do the work rather than me having to change things manually. Originally I thought I would be happy just changing locos over by hand, however I think this set-up will be more fun! Other changes to the scenic element include Platform Four now being a local service platform and the third storage siding being cut down. I felt that I was putting sidings in for the sake of it and it didn't really add anything to the layout/operations. This does leave a significant amount of dead space below the station, which I don't mind having as I felt that the layout was becoming a bit crowded with track. I did think about putting a taxi rank/drop-off point there but there doesn't seem to be enough room and I'm at a loss as to what could go there. Any ideas are very welcome. I have also changed the shunting logistics in the TMD area and have a run-around which does not interfere with a) the TMD area, and b) the mainline/station. Another idea I had was to have a recovery loco based there like one of the Virgin Thunderbirds. Again, it would add a bit of operational interest having a class 57 shifting around broken down Voyagers etc. 

 

Looking forward to hearing people's thoughts.

[imt]

I would advise taking out the crossovers at the end of your fiddle yard and using the money to buy some Peco Loco Lifts, you can use them to lift (and turn)  a loco from one end to the other, saves space and physical handling of locos.  Also you have 7ft platforms and only one FY siding capable of holding that length of train?

 

You also might like to think about if you are doing this "Inverness" style shunting that you would be drawing out the stock onto the Up (right hand) line.  If you are doing that why the crossover between the middle two platforms? The way you have it at the moment would mean that a 5/6 coach train would foul the crossovers at the head of the fiddle yard meaning you could not run in a train on the down line simultaneously EXCEPT from the single extreme left hand FY siding.  I would suggest that you shorten the platform lengths by a few inches, move the FY sidings right  and insert another long siding to the left.  You would then chop off your current 5th siding and move the 6th with the DMU pushbacks left and all your FY sidings would be able to take 4'6" long trains as a minimum (at least 3 coaches and a diesel loco) and your longest two would be able to hold probably 5/6 coaches and loco.

 

As to what to do with the bottom two lines in your station, try milk unloading for your town, post/parcels, Motorail (if appropriate).  Many main line stations had such things at various times - there are threads on this site about all of them - just search.

 

If you don't understand what I am saying PM me a copy of your Anyrail file and I'll do the suggested changes.

 

You are doing well, and this could be a nice layout to operate an intensive passenger timetable with some added specialist freight to add some extra interest.

 

With Hornby/Peco Setrack curved points use a 20 (15,16) or similar to avoid the possible stuttering of short wheelbase locos over them.

[Zomboid]

Have you considered a single-lead FY? You'd get slightly longer storage sidings, but at the cost of parallel moves- and you can't get many of those in anyway.

Also have a look at the famous Minories plan for a station throat; taking elements of that would reduce the number of reverse curves you'd have, and would allow you to have a longer FY by moving the approach tracks up a bit.

[imt]

First and essential point: Rule 1 - it's your layout do it like you want to.

 

Zomboid's suggestion about a single line was one I though about too.  My reason for rejecting it was that I have something similar but smaller with only 2 platforms, a single line and a 4 road FY using DCC - space constraints.  BUT when I have friend(s) in we can still run a pretty intensive 120 move day on it.  I'd love your space and if I had it I'd run an intensive service on it since it's really a passenger only layout.  For example the "third way" of turning trains is to attach a new loco at the outer end from the TMD, pull out the train and then run the loco at the head of the platform back to the TMD (or onto another train).  The other two, are loco run round crossovers and the pilot pull out of one platform and push back into the same or another - your "Inverness" approach.  Many early station designs actually had arrival and departure platforms.  The pulling out of the stock could include the pilot taking empty stock to the (off scene) carriage sidings (i.e. the fiddle yard!). This can be hectic fun with 4 platforms if you have the pairs of hands and use DCC (not essential but its easier to have multiple loco moves in my experience).

 

In my opinion, getting multiple in/out moves is about doing the changes I suggested to the FY (or something similar) and balancing it a bit more between the dual lines.  That shortens the platforms a little but increases operational variation.

 

As to the comments about Minories, you can get the flavour from http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/78492-minories-holborn-viaduct/ at post #12.  I am not sure that it would help much on Setrack points.  I'll have a go if I get time.

 

Have fun.

[imt]

Herewith a very quick attempt on a Minories throat using Hornby Setrack.  The objective of such a throat formation is to cut down the "S" bends and side to side movements of stock entering and leaving a station.  It also uses all straight points. It looks good and it has a purpose - but it takes space.  Maybe you can look at this and perhaps it will help you, perhaps not.  I have put a couple of lines on to show how the arrangement impacts on your available space. 

 

I like your layout as it stands, and if you do too change nothing!

 

I have sent a PM with the Anyrail file (look at the envelope icon in the top right of your screen.  If you want help PM me yours and I'll try to incorporate the two.   Oh no i haven't - this daft system won't let me - sorry.

[Zomboid]

Unless I'm counting the squares wrong, that arrangement allows more space for platforms, not less. Just over 4 feet from the LH edge in the OPs plan, in the above one platforms could start just over 3 feet from the LH edge. 3 & 4 could be longer too, by coming off that first lead.

[imt]

Unless I'm counting the squares wrong, that arrangement allows more space for platforms, not less. Just over 4 feet from the LH edge in the OPs plan, in the above one platforms could start just over 3 feet from the LH edge. 3 & 4 could be longer too, by coming off that first lead.

 

Yes it looks as if I am the one that cannot count.  I think that IF the OP wants to take this further there is scope as you point out.  It would be good to ensure a balance between the platform lengths and the FY siding lengths, and I don't have time to do it and he might not want it anyway.  For my money the ladder should be equal either side of the two main lines - i.e. 3 either side, that gives plenty of scope for simultaneous movements.  There may be scope for the Pacific 231G amendment for the special 3 line throat.

 

The only bad bit at the moment is the entry into P4 and maybe a long point there would help if there is room.

 

The first lead off echoes his entry to his TMD and other traffic area.  But as you say there may be scope for redesign there if he wants to, I just kept it as it was.

[MattBlack33]

Hello everyone, thank you all for your replies, they have certainly given me a lot to think about! I have made some amendments to the layout again to reflect your points, but I shall respond to your posts first as I have some more questions.

 

Imt: whilst looking for the Inverness shunting I found a video of Fort William shunting where a 67 was used with a crossover to an outside line.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pqei4FA2yjY

 

So I thought that I would introduce a crossover to the internal lines of the station to be able to do this (either as well as the 08 shunting down the mainline or in lieu of it depending on the day's operations in the station). I have also thought about the Fort WIlliam set-up and was considered having an outside run-around like on P4, but I could not work out how to incorporate it into the layout without adding extra points (and length) to an already fully expanded layout (my other half would kill me if it got any bigger!). 

 

I tried a few variations of the suggestions you had made above, but then I saw your post with the minories entrance and incorporated this instead (see my latest plan). If you think it would be worthwhile me sending the file across to you after the latest iteration, I would really appreciate your input. In the meantime, thank you providing the minories example. This has been added to the layout and as Zomboid has said, means I can have a more efficient approach, whilst also keeping the platform lengths in the station.

 

 

Additions:

• FY now has 2x long-train sidings.
• Minories entrance to station.
• Slight reworking of TMD.
• Plans to break baseboard into sections for portability (sections shown by red lines) - any advice about doing this would be great too.

I'm having a lot of fun with this so it's nice that others are interested in helping out too!

[imt]

I was unable to send you my suggestions in Anyrail as this software would not accept the file type.  You seem to have done very well without them!  Looks better and the curve into the station is more sweeping.  The only improvement could be Pacific 231G's high intensity update to the throat.

 

Your board divides look OK EXCEPT for the one at the head of the fiddle yard as it goes through a point!  Don't do it!  It would be better if joints were away from points entirely.  You need to think carefully what you want to achieve with the joints - are that for a regular full strike down and rebuild, or for occasional clearing out of a guest room etc.  That will set the parameters on how many joints and how well they need to be made.  You may need some careful negotiation with the domestic authorities to decide how big it can be and how much needs to be demount-able.  Best of that is restricted to the fiddle yard really.

 

Your idea of having multiple ways to rebuild trains is a good one, and you have the space to have several approaches which will increase operating interest.

 

If you want me to look at it further I have PMed my e-mail address to you, but don't stop posting here or you will lose access to lots of good advice.

[MattBlack33]

I was unable to send you my suggestions in Anyrail as this software would not accept the file type.  You seem to have done very well without them!  Looks better and the curve into the station is more sweeping.  The only improvement could be Pacific 231G's high intensity update to the throat.

 

Your board divides look OK EXCEPT for the one at the head of the fiddle yard as it goes through a point!  Don't do it!  It would be better if joints were away from points entirely.  You need to think carefully what you want to achieve with the joints - are that for a regular full strike down and rebuild, or for occasional clearing out of a guest room etc.  That will set the parameters on how many joints and how well they need to be made.  You may need some careful negotiation with the domestic authorities to decide how big it can be and how much needs to be demount-able.  Best of that is restricted to the fiddle yard really.

 

Your idea of having multiple ways to rebuild trains is a good one, and you have the space to have several approaches which will increase operating interest.

 

If you want me to look at it further I have PMed my e-mail address to you, but don't stop posting here or you will lose access to lots of good advice.

 

I saw that you were unable to send that file across. I wonder if it is something worth mentioning to the moderators as I imagine there is a big demand for the sharing of Anyrail files across the board? I am more than happy to email across the file to the address you provided, thank you! I had a quick look for the Pacific configuration you mentioned, however my searches only came back with Locos and I did not have the time to look into it further so I would really appreciate it if you could have a play and see what you can do.

 

I had put that join in a little lower to avoid the points, it must have moved as I was modifying the track and/or baseboard! The reason I am wanting to give it some portability is that it will be in a spare room which we may decide to have as a guest bedroom at some point. So, The Management are happy for it to be any size, as long as it can be easily moved for the above reason! Once I have a better idea of the final track configuration I will make a paper mock-up and see where it all sits in the space I have and have a think about where to put the joins.

 

I have not made any changes since the last iteration and have been focusing on designing the station building. I may start posting my progress as a layout thread at some point.

[Zomboid]

I'd suggest moving the scenic break up a bit, to disguise the first crossover for the FY. The real railway wouldn't have 3 in succession as shown.

[imt]

Well here are my thoughts and an amendment or two to your plan, which appears below but which I have also returned by email. It's better that this is shown here so other helpful comments can be made on it.

 

A: This is the extra line which allows simultaneous moves in and out without conflict (but see below). Its just 2 extra points and a couple of ST230. I have used an ST201 which would need cutting back or a piece of flexitrack substituting.  This greatly increases the simultaneous movements possible and (I think) looks even better.

 

B: You need to consider the length of your locos for the siting of this crossover, remember you need space for a buffer stop and clearance for the loco to uncouple, run forwar and then run round.  The single 201 is probably enough for most diesels, but not for tender steam locos.  You need to do some measuring and checking of the lengths of typical motive power and stock you will be using. On my layout I get a Class 37 and 5 MK1 carriages into 170 cm.  I have numbered your platforms from the top.  You do need to balance these with Fidddle Yard siding lengths - there is no point haveing one significantly longer than the other.  Your FY sidings 1, 2 and 3 are 175cm.  They should give you a diesel and 5 coaches, maybe 6.

 

C: Your platform widths were generous - I have used 2 * ST202s here and on Platform 1 just to show how that still gives you scale 20ft wide platforms.

 

D: Your inner curve (Up) was a Radius 1 here - definitely a no-no.  I found two other short curves that were like that too.  These curves are 3rd on the outside and 2nd on the inside, you will need to do a bit of fiddling to get proper connection here - use flexi track like you have already in some places.

 

E. Zomboid's point about hiding the second set of crossovers (essential to get free access to all FY roads so don't remove them!) is that they wouldn't be there on the real railway - you could put some kind of scenic break here: a bridge or something.  You will need to reconsider your scenic treatment now anyway.

 

F: This is a key clearance point.  If you want to run a long train in to P1, simultaneously with one leaving P2, the END of the incoming train must bebeyond this point to avoid collision if the outgoing train is heading for FY1 of FY2.  Not disastrous at all, but you need to bear that in mind for your operating sequence/timetable and with train lengths.

 

G: I have moved FY1 inwards so that you can use Peco Locolifts to handle your motive power. Leave one at the head end of a FY siding and the loco can run in easily, you can decouple it and carry it to the other end for a quick turnround without actually handling the loco (much safer!).

 

H: The board needs to be wider now OR just drop this outer line and put the push back sidings on 6.  You have a magnificent set of FY sidings, but I don't think you need the last one.

 

Now back to my earlier point - this is your layout, do it the way that pleases YOU.

 

Hope this helps you.

[Jongudmund]

Matt, what are the 3 little sidings above the TMD shed for? Might be worth taking them out to have a bit of breathing space. Staff car park for shed staff would fill the space.

[The Black Hat]

The layout in post 17 is the most sensible one so far.

 

Dont forget that the period your modelling the trackwork would have been rationalised, so there would be hardly any duplication. Points means costs, so they would go.

 

Taking the station throat first from the map in post 17 it all looks good to start with. You also have the benefit that a station approach would probably be bi-directionally signaled, meaning that any engine shunting from having brought stock in could go and sit at the protecting signal on the out line, and wait there letting another train to come in, so long as another was not wanting to go out. Any further than this would be a block section and then switch to conventional double track working.

 

You then have the issue of two points doing the same job next to each other. One right hand to the bay platform, another down to the shed. The trackwork would most likely be that there would be one right hand off from the main platform and then a left one into the bay. Straight on from the left point would take you down into the headshunt to then reverse back towards the shed. If your wanting activity you could put in a second left facing point after the one for the bay platform that gives you a siding next to your station. Perfect if ECS units need to shunt out of the way, or if you want your Thunderbird locomotive to park up somewhere. You could then model a platform alongside this siding that used to be in use years ago, but has long since been a car park. That gives you extra chance for more scenery and the like.

 

Your headshunt for the shed would then be a single track next to the car park and some high security fencing, etc. Backing onto the shed would be easy, off a right facing point that would take you back up towards the station, but on the shed avoid the need for reverse curves in the point work. A right hand point on the shed area then can immediately be placed with one that's left, giving you two roads off to your main shed. Straight on could take you to a siding or a single road shed. If you have space for a siding but in a single right hand point as you enter the shed area, before the right hand one that takes you to the two sheds. Then on this headshunt you can place one or two engines and sit them there happily.

 

Id also recommend going for DCC straight away. ECoS would love this layout and although its more expensive the route setting and control of your point work here would easily make it value for money. Doing digital first as your wiring up also avoids the need for surgery later to alter the layout. Plus your EWS and other period models are all likely DCC fitted.

 

Hope that's helpful advice.

[MattBlack33]

Matt, what are the 3 little sidings above the TMD shed for? Might be worth taking them out to have a bit of breathing space. Staff car park for shed staff would fill the space.

 

Hi Jon, these are related to the background of my layout (which I am still finalising). My fictional history is that the layout represents a second station in Aberdeen, north of the city close to the airport which was built in the late 90s to ease pressure on traffic in the city centre. A site close to Dyce/Aberdeen Airport was identified which was chosen as it already had mainline access and it was next to a recently decomissioned (fictional) freight yard/carriage sidings meaning that minimal track changes would need to be made. To cut a long story short, in the redevelopment of the site, some of the old freight sidings were not removed (due to costings) and these are sometimes used within the TMD to store diesel locos that have been repaired/awaiting repairs. To be honest, I have looked at them and thought they may be a bit superfluous, and depending on the final station design may have to go at some point. But I like the idea of having on-layout storage for my locos/stock so they're staying for now.

 

You then have the issue of two points doing the same job next to each other. One right hand to the bay platform, another down to the shed. The trackwork would most likely be that there would be one right hand off from the main platform and then a left one into the bay. Straight on from the left point would take you down into the headshunt to then reverse back towards the shed. If your wanting activity you could put in a second left facing point after the one for the bay platform that gives you a siding next to your station. Perfect if ECS units need to shunt out of the way, or if you want your Thunderbird locomotive to park up somewhere. You could then model a platform alongside this siding that used to be in use years ago, but has long since been a car park. That gives you extra chance for more scenery and the like.

 

Your headshunt for the shed would then be a single track next to the car park and some high security fencing, etc. Backing onto the shed would be easy, off a right facing point that would take you back up towards the station, but on the shed avoid the need for reverse curves in the point work. A right hand point on the shed area then can immediately be placed with one that's left, giving you two roads off to your main shed. Straight on could take you to a siding or a single road shed. If you have space for a siding but in a single right hand point as you enter the shed area, before the right hand one that takes you to the two sheds. Then on this headshunt you can place one or two engines and sit them there happily.

 

Id also recommend going for DCC straight away. ECoS would love this layout and although its more expensive the route setting and control of your point work here would easily make it value for money. Doing digital first as your wiring up also avoids the need for surgery later to alter the layout. Plus your EWS and other period models are all likely DCC fitted.

 

Hope that's helpful advice.

Thanks for the advice, Black Hat. I have taken your points into consideration and added them into the latest design. I'm still learning some of the terminology so I hope I've managed to interpret what you've meant accurately!

 

I'd suggest moving the scenic break up a bit, to disguise the first crossover for the FY. The real railway wouldn't have 3 in succession as shown.

 

Thanks Zomboid, I have done this!

 

So this is the latest incarnation. As suggested by IMT I have now moved onto using Streamline track in order to be closer to prototypical as well as incorporating the Minories entrance he suggested in post #21. I have not changed the FY track gemoetry as I thought it might be better in terms of access to trains in the fiddle yard. I've not included any scenic elements on this plan as I am finding I am deleting them as quickly as I was creating them!

 

 

Let me know what you think!

[Zomboid]

Looks a lot nicer with streamline. The extra line at the top doesn't quite work though. The curve following the point is too tight, but any less tight and it would be too wide.

Is your freight run round long enough? Probably better to sacrifice a siding to have a long enough run round.