Main line through station in N

[jamespetts]

Some further revisions to improve the fiddle yard's ability to handle multiple DMUs in any sequence (one road in each direction is now dedicated to DMUs of 425mm or less in length, with direct access for each unit stored to the main running lines), and also more capacity in the locomotive stabling yards:

 

 

The redesign comes as a result of working out in more detail how the layout might be operated. I think that I posted earlier on the question of service patterns that might call at the station. Having researched western Thames valley services in a little more detail, the service pattern seems more varied and complex (and interesting) than I had initially envisaged, so I have altered the layout to take account of this (part of this was done in the previous revision: see above).

 

I currently plan on having the following diagrams:

 

Inter-City passenger

1. GWML express, non-stop, passing platform 3 (up) or 2 (down), HST formation

2. GWML express, stopping, booked platform 3 (up) or 2 (down), HST formation

3. London to inter-regional express, non-stop, passing platform 3 (up) or 2 (down), class 47/50*, air-conditioned Mark 2s

4. London to inter-regional express, stopping, booked platform 3 (up) or 2 (down), class 47/50*, air-conditioned Mark 2s

5. Cross-country express, stopping, booked platform 3 (up) or 2 (down), class 47, air-conditioned Mark 2s

 

Network SouthEast passenger

6. Main through, stopping, booked platform 4 (up) or 5 (down), class 47/50* + Mark 1/2s

7. Main terminating, terminating**, booked platform 4 (departure) or 5 (arrival), class 47/50* + Mark 1/2s

8. Local terminating up, terminating**, booked platform 4 (departure) or 5 (arrival), NSE DMU 3 car

9. Local through up to branch, stopping, booked platform 4 (up) or 5 (down), NSE DMU 2 car

10. Local terminating down, terminating, booked platform 1, NSE DMU 2 car

11. Branch terminating, terminating, booked platform 1, NSE DMU 1 car

 

Provincial passenger

12. Main through, stopping, booked platform 4 (up) or 5 (down), class 47/50* + Mark 1/2s

13. Local terminating down, booked platform 1, Provincial DMU or Sprinter 2 car

 

Mail/parcels

14. Through mail, stopping, booked platform 4 (up) or 5 (down), class 47 + Mark 1 mail vehicles

15. Parcels, stopping, booked platform 4 (up - carriages attached from parcels dock) or parcels dock (down - carriages detached), class 47 + Mark 1 mail vehicles

 

Freight

16. MGR coal***, stopping to allow fast trains to pass, booked platform 4 (up) or 5 (down), class 58/56 + HAAs

17. Petroleum, non-stop, booked to pass platform 2 (up) or 3 (down), class 37/47/31 + bogie tankers

18. Aggregates***, stopping to allow fast trains to pass, booked platform 4 (up) or 5 (down), class 59****/56 + PGAs

 

* 47s only until Dapol release their Class 50

** Uses the carriage sidings between arriving and departing

*** Uses 2 identical rakes with one full, one empty

**** 56s only until Dapol release their class 59

 

There is then the question of how the stock for this will fit into the fiddle yards. The main fiddle yards have 18 roads (9 on the up side and 9 on the down side), including the 2 dedicated DMU roads. There are also two short branch fiddle yard roads (we imagine that this single track branch line had a passing loop so that we can alternate between the shuttle terminators and the through trains).

 

I have provisionally imagined the following main fiddle yard road assignments (with diagram numbers as above, except for the DMUs, dealt with in more detail below):

 

2x DMU (up to x4 DMUs in each)

2x spare (to allow for through movements)

3x HST (1, 2)

1x petroleum train (17)

2x MGR (16)

2x aggregates (18)

2x Inter-City locomotive hauled (3, 4, 5)

2x NSE locomotive hauled (6, 7, 12)

2x mail/parcels (14, 15)

 

I do wonder whether to remove the aggregates diagram as this requires two identical long trains and replace it with a container diagram with a class 47 in RFD livery (which would then require only one train, as the empty shipping containers would presumably have to be returned at some point); the additional fiddle yard slot could then allow one extra Inter-City locomotive hauled passenger train to give some variety of 47/4s. However, there seem to have been a lot of aggregates trains in the Oxford area, but few container trains in the late 1980s, at least in so far as I can find pictures online (does anyone have any more information about this)?

 

I can also envisage an alternative week-end diagram with the aggregates and petroleum traffic not running, but additional engineering trains and a short train of 4 wheel tankers servicing the fuelling point. One might also imagine other timetable alterations for a week-end service, such as no through trains to the branch, and the insertion of occasional special trains (football specials, perhaps) either stopping or non-stop. The fiddle yard would thus need to be manually re-populated to switch between a week-end and weekday service, although the aim is to work on the weekday service first.

 

The absence of class 117 DMUs in N-gauge makes setting up DMU formations challenging, but I think that I have a workable pattern as set out below. The numbers in brackets represent the service numbers above that the DMU will work:

 

• 3-car Class 101 in blue/grey with NSE branding (8)
• 2 car Class 101 in NSE original + Class 121 in NSE revised (8)
• 2 car Class 101 in NSE original (9)
• 2 car Class 101 in NSE original (10)
• Class 121 in NSE revised+Class 121 in blue/grey with NSE branding (10)
• Class 121 (unsure of livery - the NSE motorised units are hard to obtain) (11)
• 2 car Class 108 in blue/grey (13)
• 2 car Class 150 with "Sprinter" branding (13)

This leaves up to 2 additional slots in the fiddle yards for further units if anyone ever decides to produce an N gauge class 117 (or I work out how to 3D print one in colour).

 

The choice of a class 150 is not quite correct for the place and time, as a class 155 would have been preferable, but these are not currently available; class 150/1s were used on the Oxford - Great Malvern service in the early 1990s (albeit with de-branded Centro livery), so this is not too far out, and probably preferable to using class 156s, which strike me as less plausible for this service. I am most keen on having something with "Sprinter" branding using the bay, as I recall seeing one of BR's second generation units with "Sprinter" (I think actually "Super Sprinter") branding for the first time in the bay platform in Oxford in the late 1980s. As to the class 108, there is at least one photograph of a blue/grey class 108 at Oxford in 1988 on a Costwold line service that I have found on Flickr, so this is also plausible. There are plenty of photographs of class 101s on services from Reading to Oxford, Reading to Banbury and Banbury to Oxford, and I have seen at least one photograph of 2x 121s coupled together at Oxford heading for Didcot in 1989. There were at least some NSE branded class 121s left in blue/grey in 1989 according to pictures that I have seen, although I am less sure of the 101s.

 

For shunting the parcels vehicles, a Class 08 may well be required (I have seen pictures of a rail blue Class 08 at Oxford in the parcels dock in 1989), although there is no DCC ready Class 08 in N-gauge, so professional DCC fitting would be required.

 

Does anyone have any idea of quite how parcels docks were used in the 1980s? They were clearly in use during this period, but quite how the train operations worked involving them I do not quite know.

Edited April 14, 2018 by jamespetts

[Satan's Goldfish]

I'd still try and get a big sweeping curve along the whole length to improve the visual aesthetic. HSTs are still able to do 125mph on large enough curves, which that definitely would be.

[jamespetts]

Thank you for your thoughts. Looking at the Google Maps view of Oxford station, the area through the station itself seems quite striaight (aside from a slight kink near the Rewley Road bridge). There are gentle curves both north and south, but not through the station itself.

 

Likewise, Didcot Parkway, if we ignore the junction, is on a very straight piece of main line.

 

Since the station is intended to be inspired by a combination of Oxford and Didcot, it seems to make sense to depict the station as quite straight rather than on a curve. Also, I am a little concerned that adding a curve would add to the width of the layout, which might have implications for its interaction with the planned higher level OO gauge layout.

 

I can see that a long gentle curve would in many ways be a good look, but I suspect that it is not right for this particular layout.

[jamespetts]

Some further slight revisions: firstly, I have scaled the buildings correctly based on actual measurements of appropriate scale buildings (mainly Graham Farish and Scale Scene - what are people's views on the quality and ease of assembly of Scale Scene buildings?).

 

Secondly, I have re-organised the parcels dock and car park area slightly and added some additional sidings on the near side of the tracks on the down side as similar (albeit larger) sidings seem to have existed at Oxford. These might well be useful for DMU stabling (and they were actually used thus at Oxford in the 1980s according to the photographic evidence that I have seen:

 

50023 by Redhill Bull, on Flickr

 

Revised diagram follows:

 

[Chimer]

I haven't really been paying attention to this one, as I didn't think it was likely to happen ...... but now you say you're going to do it first, there is something that I noticed in passing  ......

 

The carriage sidings taking the form of loops looks odd to me.  I would have expected a simple set of single ended sidings.  I also seem to remember narrow platforms allowing access to the doors for internal cleaning, etc.

 

I'm another one who would always want sweeping curves in the scenic section, but rule 1 takes precedence 

 

Cheers

 

Chris

 

 

[jamespetts]

I think that the sidings north of Oxford were in loop form to a large extent, as in this picture:

 

BR Class 150/1 DMU no. 150126, Oxford, early 1990s by Michael Day, on Flickr

 

How would you imagine that single ended carriage sidings would have been used? I was imagining that a locomotive hauled train would arrive at platform 5, continue with its original locomotive into the carriage sidings, the locomotive would detach, reverse into the fuelling point, then wait in the stabling sidings. On departure, the locomotive would come forward of the stabling sidings into the headshunt, attach to the carriages in the carriage sidings, and then run into platform 4. This would not work for single-ended carriage sidings, and presumably would require the carriages to be propelled into the sidings from the rear, requiring all incoming terminating locomotive hauled trains either to be serviced by a class 08 or have the locomotive run around the train at the up end, requiring additional trackwork there.

 

(Out of interest - does anyone know how the Oxford carriage sidings were actually used?)

 

In relation to curvature, as indicated, the stations that inspire this layout are on largely straight track (and the platforms themselves are straight), but I am wondering whether a little curvature just at the down (right hand) side of the layout might be worthwhile (as well as altering the road bridge at the left hand/up side to make it look as though there used to be four tracks in that area, and one or two other amendments). I will post an amended plan when I get a moment.

[Satan's Goldfish]

Ref carriage sidings rather than loops (yeah, they don't look right to me either, but I think of Gt Yarmouth for carriage loops which have a fan of points rather than a ladder at each end, and Norwich low level sidings which are also more fanned); sidings would use a bit less length. Add a centre road between platforms 4 and 5 to assist with run rounds (maybe even a short loco stub at the left end coming off the single track that leads into 4 and 5) and have loco stabling and refuelling sidings alongside the carriage sidings. Save yourself quite a few points that way (subtract 6ish for using sidings rather than loops, add 3 for centre road and loco stub). Remember, the real railway doesn't always use the most logical methods of operations and there's nothing wrong with having an 08 to assist with station pilot duties. In fact, it would probably be more operationally interesting.

[jamespetts]

Thank you for your thoughts. I have now amended the design a little further thus:

 

 

Changes include:

• slight curvature to the line on the down side;
• extra fiddle yard space for multiple units, allowing both the storage of more multiple units than before and allowing the two roads previously set aside for multiple units to be used for full-length trains;
• additional sidings (to replicate those found on the east side of the down lines at Oxford as shown in the two photographs above);
• more accurate measurement of the necessary widths of platforms and the fuelling point;
• the addition of fuel storage tanks and a siding for the wagons serving them;
• a slight alteration in the shape of the baseboard to take more account of the shape of the baseboard of the planned OO gauge layout above and allow a little more space on the down side;
• an alteration in the design of the road bridge on the up side to allow space for two extra tracks not present to signify that there would have been quadruple track on the up side at some point in the past;
• slight revisions to the position of signals;
• the alteration of the position of the planned multi-storey car park;
• re-orientation of the parcels building; and
• the addition of portable offices, as shown in one of the photographs above.

I should prefer to keep the looped carriage sidings, as this seems more consistent both with how the photographs show that the sidings at Oxford actually were and with how I remember the locomotive hauled trains using Oxford and the carriage sidings (I do not remember the shunting and coupling/uncoupling taking place in the station at all: the trains were, from what I recall, always ready and brought into the station by the locomotive that was to haul them to their destination attached to the front and ready to go).

 

I have deliberately kept the arrangement simple at the up side, as this is the part that will be a little buried underneath the main line curves of the planned OO gauge layout above (which will start at just about the point where the tracks diverge into platforms 4/5).

[Chimer]

That gentle S curve makes it look a lot better in my eyes.  And having, I think, found the Oxford carriage sidings on Google Earth (just north of the station?) I have to admit they are loops!

 

Cheers

 

Chris

[Satan's Goldfish]

Had a play about, just to see how it would look with a couple of alterations (it's a 'based on', not a 'replica of prototype' so I've thought model operational interest rather than prototype location). I've cleared how close to the end loops some of your tracks are too, they look far too tight to fit a sensible back scene in. Coach loops are now sidings fed from a fan, centre road between 4 and 5 for a run around (that's supposed to be a diamond crossing at the right end of the loop!) and a loco stub at the left. Sidings at the very front slight altered to make for interesting shunting. No options you'll probably want to use, done just because I can.

[mightbe]

I think for the loop sidings to work you need them to be a bit longer--the carriage sidings at Oxford were/are really quite long.

 

Checking google maps they have recently reverted to regular sidings, with the buffers facing north. Incidentally, the carriage sidings as-built were also single-ended but faced south (visible on OS maps). I wonder how long they were double ended?

[jamespetts]

Thank you all for your thoughts: that is most helpful.

 

Mightbe - can you elaborate on why and in what way that you do not think that the loops will work at this length? On the far side of the main line, the longest loop is a scale length of 274m and the shortest 146m. The two longer loops can accommodate 9 car passenger trains without difficulty.

 

As to fitting in back scenes, how would one go about working out the necessary separation between track and back scene board (which I anticipate being possibly curved in the case of this layout) at any given point?

[mightbe]

2 main reasons:

 

a) carriage sidings are typically much longer than the platforms of the station associated with them, often by a factor of 1.5 or 2 (Counterexample: Dover Priory, but the reasons for that arrangement are pretty obvious)

b) since it's a fairly small layout, having two long ladders takes up a lot of would-be storage space in addition to visual space. This is a rare instance of more (i.e. longer) track = less cramped on the whole

 

Loop carriage sidings are atypical in the UK--twice the cost for turnouts (etc) and less of the space taken up is usable for storage (as a proportion). Carriage sidings are rarely more than 3/4 full by design, allowing a degree of operational flexibility without the additional outlay of a second ladder or more land. IMHO it's quite telling that Oxford's carriage sidings (west of the line) are once again single-ended (curiously now facing the opposite direction)

 

EDIT: Here's a pic of the current situation just for reference:

 

 

And this from the opposite end shows the interesting curve taken by the track north of the station:

 

 

The situation you're modelling would be this from 1979, correct?

 

Edited April 20, 2018 by mightbe

[jamespetts]

Interesting pictures - I see that the carriage sidings have now partly been built on. It makes sense, of course, for the sidings now to be single ended as they serve only DMUs and HSTs, which can easily reverse in the sidings and do not need to have a locomotive running around the carriages as was necessary in the 1980s.

 

I had not realised that they had re-aligned the main lines to the north of Oxford - is this related to the new through services to the Great Central mainline? As to the last picture, that is probably closer to what I had in mind, although its hard to see the layout of the sidings from that view: the picture above from circa 1993 with the class 150 seems to be the best that I have found so far.

 

Can I ask what operational reason that there was for carriage sidings being 1.5-2x longer than platforms such that having them shorter would not be workable?

[Satan's Goldfish]

At a guess, carriages weren't formed into fixed rakes like they are now and 'sets' would be chopped around with more/less 1st/2nd as required. Having the sidings longer than the platforms makes shunting the formation easier.

[mightbe]

I don't believe the main line has been realigned just north of the station, at least not significantly. Pictures from all eras seem to show the slight S bend, and it's discernible in old OS maps as well. 

 

If you look at a map from above it looks straight, but due to the low angle the curvature becomes more apparent due to foreshortening IIRC. It's one of the reasons why I never look at layout plans from above; I pick up my laptop and look at very low angles, usually along the track.

 

Satan's Goldfish is exactly right--rakes were constantly being taken apart and reassembled with varying numbers of 1st/2nd coaches etc.

 

I think single-ended (buffers to the right) would work well as suggested above--the locomotive would run around the carriages and propel them into the sidings. Such shunting was beyond commonplace, in fact it was the norm outside of locations with dedicated pilots. And since the station/platform arrangement is merely inspired by Oxford, I see no issue taking a few liberties with the carriage sidings too. 

[DCB]

It is a good job the real Oxford signallers don't have to try to run traffic with this track layout, trains would be backed up for miles.   The layout is actually not unlike Kingham in the late 1950s, 20 miles or so North West where the branch trains from Chipping Norton and Cheltenham terminated in the "Side" platforms leaving the main line platforms for through trains.   As drawn there is good turn back facilities for trains to and from the north, but not the south  Like Cheltenham Oxford does not really differentiate between through and originating or terminating trains, they come in the platform, load, or unload and depart, whether the destination is a hundred miles away or the sidings a hundred yards away is irrelevant.  , I don't see any point to the two upper platforms to be honest.  A bay for the Marylebone line on the bottom of the plan would be good but otherwise I would  stick with four lines two platforms

[jamespetts]

Thank you all for your thoughts.

 

Firstly, David - I have given some consideration to the issues that you raise. The basic idea of this layout is that it represents a fictional hybrid of Didcot and Oxford (hence name Oxcott), and is thus intended to be situated on the Great Western mainline. The real Great Western mainline is quadruple tracked at Didcot, as is no doubt necessitated by the mix of express and local/freight services and the density of both. The idea of Oxcott was to represent a line that was formerly quadruple track, but subsequently reduced to double track in the 1960s, which is the reason for having the four platforms.

 

I did wonder how sensible that it would be to represent this part of the railway as double tracked given the intensity of different speeds of traffic, and so I attempted to try to quadruple the up (left-hand) side of the layout, but it became apparent that this would not fit without a radical redesign of the whole plan and in any event would involve significant conflicts between the up/down lines at the entrance/exit to the fiddle yards, as the Great Western mainline was paired by use rather than by direction.

 

The reason for wanting a GWML setting was in large part a desire to see large number of HST workings, inducing HSTs passing through at high speed without stopping (as would be common at Didcot). I know that a few HSTs on Hereford services passed through Oxford in the late 1980s, but this is not really quite the same.

 

In terms of the problems with this layout causing excessive conflicts, can you elaborate on what the difficulties might be in practice? The idea is that the upper platforms would be used for trains terminating in the carriage sidings for the most part (and also some mail/parcels workings that occupy the platforms for a long time), whereas the lower platforms would be for long distance Intercity trains passing through. So, for example, one might have a local train come and terminate in platform 5 and, before it had cleared the platform, an express train stop at platform 3. What sort of turn-back facilities at the south had you envisaged? I had in mind locomotive hauled trains terminating in platform 5, being hauled to the carriage sidings, having the locomotive taken off, possibly refuelled, and then re-attached at the other end ready to be taken into platform 4 with an up departure. Is that a problematic way of working, do you think?

 

In relation to the carriage sidings' length, I do not think that any marshalling was actually done in the carriage sidings at Oxford in the 1980s (the photographs of the trains that I looked at in detail yesterday to try to work out how many standard class mk1s that I should need in light of the fact that the availability of these in NSE livery is rapidly deteriorating - I think that I might have bought almost all that were left available new - showed a consistent 1.5 carriages' worth of first class in 9 carriage rakes on Oxford to Paddington locomotive hauled services), although no doubt it would have been done in earlier times. One might imagine that the present layout is as a result of the sidings being cut back somewhat in the 1960s/1970s to fit their more limited modern purpose. Certainly, I cannot fit in carriage sidings 1.5x the length of the platforms, and I do not want to give up on the idea of having carriage sidings at all, as these were always planned to be a central feature of the layout. I wonder whether something might be done to give the visual impression that the sidings were longer in the past, and some buildings to give an explanation for why they were cut back - perhaps the multi-storey car park that I am quite keen to have can be moved to that area? That sort of thing would have been built at just the sort of time that sidings were being cut back and was what a lot of railway land ended up being used for.

 

As to single ended carriage sidings, that would entail quite significant changes in how the layout would be operated (and make its operation quite different from how I remembered Oxford being operated in the late 1980s/early 1990s), which would be contrary to what I am trying to achieve with this layout.

[jamespetts]

I have been thinking a little more about how best to imagine this location's setting in order to have a workable level of service. Having this on the GWML with only a two track mainline on the up side does not seem workable owing to the volume of express and local traffic that would be using those lines. There therefore appear in principle to be two alternatives:

 

(1) to continue to imagine this as a GWML setting, but with a quadruple track up line, reducing to two on the down (like Didcot); or

(2) to cease to imagine this as on the GWML at all, and imagine this as always having been on a twin track mainline.

 

In relation to (1), I am having trouble finding any way of fitting in adequate fiddle yard capacity for a quad track mainline. I thought that I might use the far end wall of the shed for this purpose, but this does not seem to be workable.

 

Below is a diagram of my abortive attempt to do this:

 

 

The green fiddle yard track on the left shows the necessary length of a fiddle yard siding. As will be seen, this does not fit into the space available. Even if I were to take out the fiddle yard sidings on the far wall loop, this would still lead to myriad conflicts. The only way that I can think of removing conflicts is to have the lines paired by direction rather than by use and have the quad track simply merge into double track just at the threshold of the fiddle yards (removing the necessity to occupy the far wall), but that is not how the GWML was arranged.

 

Below is a diagram of an attempt to realise no. (2) above:

 

 

As can be seen, this is closer to pure Oxford than a Didcot/Oxford hybrid, with two platforms with through lines in the centre and a main line that was evidently always double track. There are some extra sidings on the up side and the carriage sidings are slightly longer owing to the re-arranged track layout.

 

In this configuration, the carriage sidings do not have access to the up platform (unlike actual Oxford), so all terminating/starting trains would have to use the down platform, with the exception of DMUs using the carriage sidings on the up side of the line down from the station (i.e., lower right on the diagram). In practice, this would mean that all locomotive hauled and some DMU terminating trains would have to use the main down platform for both terminating and starting. I am not immediately sure of how much of a problem that this might be.

 

Imagining this on the Didcot to Leamington line also raises a question about HST services - I very much want to have a regular HST service, many of which do not stop at the station, but there were few HSTs serving Oxford in the 1980s (apart from a few services to Hereford). The best explanation that I have imagined so far for such a service is that these comprise Bristol to Birmingham trains, for which purpose one has to imagine that the more direct Bristol to Birmingham route had been closed in teh 1960s.

 

Even in that eventuality, the service frequency of the HSTs would be less than on the GWML (perhaps 1 or maybe 2 per hour each way), but that may make the timetable more manageable in any event.

 

I should be grateful for any thoughts on these alternatives: can anyone see an alternative way of having a quad track up line, for example, without excessive conflicts?

[jamespetts]

Here is a further attempt at a workable quad track version:

 

 

The only way in which this can fit into the space is to merge the quadruple tracks into double as soon as the fiddle yard area starts. However, this gives rise to conflicts, as the down main crosses the up relief.

 

I should be grateful for any views on the potential workability of this arrangement.

Edited April 29, 2018 by jamespetts

[Zomboid]

The GWML has always been 2 track between Didcot and Severn Tunnel Junction.

 

I'd suggest having a look at Banbury for inspiration - within a fairly small time window HSTs are credible there on the cross country services (and some loco hauled XC too), there's some suburban trains from Marylebone, and some Paddington to Birmingham loco hauled trains too. Plus lots of freight. Cross country HSTs were not marshalled with first at one specific end and whilst they might not have been on that particular route in the 1980s they were running some XC services, so it wouldn't be stretching things too far (IMO) to put them there.

 

4 tracks probably needs more space then you have, really.

[Chimer]

It took a while to realise that what you meant by "a quadruple track up line, reducing to two on the down" was quadruple track in the up (London) direction from the station and double track the other way - my original vision was of 4 up lines and 2 down!  That said ....

 

It doesn't seem to me that you gain anything operationally by appearing to have 4 tracks leaving the station to the left, if you bring them together immediately they're off-scene.  The only real argument in favour of quad tracks is that they allow simultaneous movements, especially overtaking, and of course this can't be done unless your four tracks continue at least a train's length beyond the scenic break, even if they were paired by direction to avoid conflict at a diamond crossing.

 

Maybe you could take 4 tracks round the 180 turn at the left hand end, and have the diamond and the coming-togethers in the top left corner?  The inevitable stops to avoid conflicts would then be out of sight, at least.

 

Cheers

 

Chris

[Satan's Goldfish]

Or split the fiddle yard into 4 sections rather than 2 so the 4 track line isn't interrupted, and have the junction with the diamond at the far end of it (splitting off scene at the country end of the station. That should allow 4 track operations without interference, just means a train may need to be held briefly in the fiddle yard to wait for the diamond to clear at the country end of the layout, but that wouldn't interfere with 'on scene' operations.

[jamespetts]

Chris - I had wondered about that, too. I think that I have managed to fit in what you suggest here:

 

 

Does this seem to make more sense? A whole train could be held/queued on the leftmost loops off-scene either waiting for the cross-over to be clear or, for entering trains, put there in advance to wait for a free path so that they are not delayed by a train in the other direction.

 

Satan's Goldfish - I am not sure that I can picture what you mean. Can you elaborate, perhaps with a diagram?

[Satan's Goldfish]

Not got a drawing app to hand, but basically what you've just drawn, but move the junction with the diamond crossing that you've just moved around the curve to the far end of the fiddle yard.

 

Where your fiddle yard is currently split into 2 distinct areas, up and down, this would change it into 2 pairs of distinct areas (up main, down main, and up relief/slow, down relief/slow).

 

This would keep the 4 track mainline section clear of any conflicting moves.