Medium v. Large Radius Points in Country Terminus

[Seanem44]

I am building a rural terminus in OO.  The layout will be 14-20 feet long, including fiddle yard.  The design of the station is somewhat of a smallish country station,  similar to Ruxley, if you are familiar with that layout.

 

Would I be OK sticking with medium turnouts only?  Would that be prototypical for such a station, or more of an un-prototypical necessity based on my space?  I plan on using PECO 75mm finsescale.

 

Thanks!

[Londontram]

I must admit its a bit of a dilemma I'm going through at the moment. It's a juggling act trying to get everything to fit but look right, even things like a loco release at the end of a two road terminus station is causing problems. With medium radius I've got clearance in the head shunt for the larger locos with large radius point I don't with out compromising on platform and thus train length.

Oh dear decisions decisions.

[bike2steam]

If using just Peco code 75, I'd use large radius for the main running lines, and exit(s) from them, and medium radius in the yard/sidings etc. But that's personal choice, others may differ.

[Seanem44]

If using just Peco code 75, I'd use large radius for the main running lines, and exit(s) from them, and medium radius in the yard/sidings etc. But that's personal choice, others may differ.

Thanks...  this seems like a good option.  So for what my layout would be, that would be essentially four large turnouts....entrance to the station and the facing point, then the other two facing on where the track terminates.

 

I don't think this will force too much sacrifice of space at all.

 

Sometimes talking things over helps them to make sense.

[Pete the Elaner]

I am not sure anyone can answer this for you. It really is a matter of personal preference.

Model railways are full of compromises on space, so although using large radius pointwork is probably more accurate, they may cause other aspects to look compressed. Maybe medium will look better?

This is 1 situation where I would look at layouts in a exhibition, find out what pointwork they have used & decide from what I see & think of them.

[Seanem44]

I am not sure anyone can answer this for you. It really is a matter of personal preference.

Model railways are full of compromises on space, so although using large radius pointwork is probably more accurate, they may cause other aspects to look compressed. Maybe medium will look better?

This is 1 situation where I would look at layouts in a exhibition, find out what pointwork they have used & decide from what I see & think of them.

Yeah...  I agree.  Sadly, exhibitions aren't in the offing unless I can convince my wife on another UK vacation.  Sadly, magazines don't do full justice either.  I might just need to experiment.

[coachmann]

Even Peco large radius points are very sharp prototypically but it depends on how much compression you intend building into your model station/layout.  It needs to be thought out beforehand. The prototype of my station just holds 6 Mk.I coaches. My model holds 5 Mk.I's, so I used large radius points. That said, I later laid Code 100 for a particular reason and out the window went realism!

 

If you were modelling a station that took 6 coaches and your model will take 3, then large radius points could look overpowering.

Edited July 12, 2018 by coachmann

[PatB]

In general it's best to use the largest turnouts you can fit into your space but this may be modified by what proportions everything else has. I'd suggest that, if you can run to the full 20 feet, you can probably fit Peco large radius geometry in. OTOH, if you've only got 14 your station may end up looking like it's all turnout and no plain track so mediums would be better.

 

Best plan might be to draw up your plan in something like SCARM or XtrkCAD (both free, I find SCARM the easier to use) to see how it all works. If you need to see it full size, you should be able to print turnout templates from either program (or I think you can download them from Peco's website these days) and have a play on the floor/tabletop/patio.

[Danemouth]

In the latest version of Danemouth, 12 feet including the fiddleyard, for the first time I've swapped from medium points to large points in the scenic section.

 

I have found that IMHO the track seems to flow better - the double slip is of course to medium radius. IIRC the difference in the length of the large and medium points is about 40 mm.

 

Have a look at my thread to see if you agree,

 

Dave

[coachmann]

In the latest version of Danemouth, 12 feet including the fiddleyard, for the first time I've swapped from medium points to large points in the scenic section.

 

I have found that IMHO the track seems to flow better - the double slip is of course to medium radius. IIRC the difference in the length of the large and medium points is about 40 mm.

 

Have a look at my thread to see if you agree,

 

Dave

Regarding the Peco double slip, I think you will find is is small radius at 2 ft Dave.

[Danemouth]

Regarding the Peco double slip, I think you will find is is small radius at 2 ft Dave.

 

Thanks Larry, It seems I've been deceiving myself for years. Still it flows nicely with the large radius points on Danemouth - I made the switch to large radius points having seen pictures of Carrog.

 

Regards,

 

Dave

[coachmann]

Thanks Larry, It seems I've been deceiving myself for years. Still it flows nicely with the large radius points on Danemouth - I made the switch to large radius points having seen pictures of Carrog.

 

Regards,

 

Dave

Sir, you are a gentleman and a scholar.     

[Zomboid]

From playing with anyrail, I think the double slip is the length of a large radius, which is probably how confusion may occur.

[wagonman]

Isn't there a correlation between train speed and radius? On that basis use the large radius for the station throat pointwork, and medium for the engine release crossover and yard points. And don't forget the trap points.

 

Simples?

[Pete the Elaner]

Yeah...  I agree.  Sadly, exhibitions aren't in the offing unless I can convince my wife on another UK vacation.  Sadly, magazines don't do full justice either.  I might just need to experiment.

Oops, Woodbridge VA, not Woodbridge, Suffolk. I can see how viewing other OO layouts is a problem.

Unfortunately I agree that experimentation is the best option for you.

I always like to build a small sample on a piece of scrap wood where possible.

[DCB]

I would go with the large radius at the fiddle yard end to help things flow.  There are plenty of tricks to squeeze the length down.   I routinely saw bits off points to save space. and try to use 44 ish mm track centres which in itself saves length.    Long points can look vaguely ridiculous as crossovers in ridiculously short termini, so maybe use medium as I did in an 8 X 2 GWR BLT, but I used medium at the FY end and regretted it, I should have put the first point the FY side of the level crossing instead of LC first but hindsight is a wonderful exact science.

Don't make the mistake of thinking points should not be on bridges, (see Buckfastleigh and Groathland) or under bridges (Goathland) or that level crossings should be on straight track and away from points (the prototype has plenty of examples of the these Horton Rd Gloucester was a nightmare,)  just make sure the point blades are not on the level crossing.   No real need to ensure your longest loco can run round, he full size didn't. The GWR had to resort to rope shunting at Faringdon when a 2-6-0 turned up.

The double slip is 2ft nominal radius, the short points are similar while the curved points are 30" radius.  

[Harlequin]

Hi Sean,

 

People have created BLT layouts that look great and work well using medium, and even small, radius points for decades. It's a matter of compromise, compression and clever design.

 

But the large radius points create more realistically flowing track work and the new Bullhead variant is a further improvement.

 

My "Hampton Malstead" design (which is simmering gently on the back burner, see the thread in this forum) uses Peco large radius points throughout so that Bullhead track can be used. It is 13.5ft long including fiddle yard. (A small prairie can run round 3 60ft coaches.)

 

(Dave's "Danemouth 5" used all large radius in the scenic area for the same reason apart from a double slip but he has since decided to use Code 75.)

 

You need to decide on the fundamentals: baseboard size (both length and width), period, how many platforms, train length, what locos, what type of fiddle yard, etc, etc... and then play around with designs accurately, to scale, to see what fits.

Edited July 13, 2018 by Harlequin

[Dunsignalling]

Your anticipated length seems rather elastic, and the decision I would make were the overall length to be at either extreme might well be different. In my own case, I'm holding back on "going bullhead" until the medium turnouts are released, simply because I don't have room to use long ones everywhere without compromising other aspects of my plan.    

 

The thing about rural branch termini is that land was cheap and promoters usually hopelessly over-optimistic about the prospects of their railway. Most were, therefore, relatively spacious unless "hemmed in" by the physical landscape, and that's something one needs to reflect in a model. 

 

if the entire thing is going to be 14ft long it suggests a scenic portion of around 9ft and FY of 5ft.  

 

If the scenic end is to be "all station" (no open country), that implies a maximum train length of 4x57' coaches, though three would look less "crowded". One of the best ways to make a small layout look less so is to not occupy more than three quarters of any part of it.

 

That goes for goods sidings too, and nothing screams "quart-into-pint-pot" worse than cramming an improbably short extra one that only holds three of four wagons into a corner that would look better as "empty" ground.

 

Under these circumstances, as others have said, using long radius pointwork can inadvertently create an impression of the station being "all points" and force you to make everything else a bit shorter to maintain your desired length of main run-round.

 

If your overall set-up goes to your upper estimate of 20ft, say 14ft scenic, 6ft fiddle, the visual benefit of using the longer ones in the prominent station throat area begins to emerge without the danger of cramping other aspects to accommodate them.

 

Much also depends on the type of fiddle yard you choose. If you go for a "pointless" type, such as cassettes or a traverser, it's possible to have a shorter one and steal a bit more room for the visible section of the layout.   

 

I'd advise firming up your idea on size as it's likely to be the deciding factor in this. Then print up some templates from the Peco website and play around with the options to establish what you consider "looks right" in your space.

 

John

Edited July 13, 2018 by Dunsignalling

[Joseph_Pestell]

For maximum realism, you need a contrast between the main running line and the rest. So a large radius point at the throat and medium radius elsewhere. Although don't forget the Y-point (6ft radius) which can be a very useful way of getting a bit of a curve into the layout which always adds to realism. The curved point, although a bit tight on the inside curve, also looks good and helps create some "flow".

 

If you have not started purchases yet, maybe worth waiting for the full range of track in the Code 75 BH range - much more realistic.

 

Also, you might want to look at the Grantham thread on here where the builder explains how to get more out of standard Peco points by bending them.

[Geep7]

On my 'West Sands' layout (approx 16' long, 10' scenic area), i've used the Peco Y points in the station throat area, which being large radius, really do add to the flow.

 

For the loco release crossover, i've used short radius, and originally, I didn't have space for medium radius.

 

If I was doing it again now, the loco release would be mediums.

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

...Also, you might want to look at the Grantham thread on here where the builder explains how to get more out of standard Peco points by bending them.

This works so well on any of the Peco large radius points in the FB ranges, and appears to be even easier with the already superior looking BH product; strongly seconded. Likewise with shortening to achieve 44mm track centres, every 'nibble' helps.

[Izzy]

I think it's most useful to download the pointwork pdf's from the Peco website and have paper printed copies laid down on the baseboard. Gives a better sense of what looks best and works in the space available.

 

Izzy

[Seanem44]

Everyone,

 

Very good food for thought.  It looks like their are a smattering of different opinions and methods, which is good.  I think Ill download one of the free rail design programs.  Exactrail isn't the best.

 

I really want to get this project off the ground, and am looking in to tempering simplicity with interest... 

[Seanem44]

So actually, here is what i am doing.  I feel this accomplishes my goal of being simple, yet appealing. 

 

Basically it is a 1940s war time layout.  The Station is a GWR station with GWR freight and passenger services.  Possible evacuees to the country... wartime anything goes type of thing so I can run what I want.

 

The engine shed is still up for debate, and I am wondering if I should have a short siding opposite side of the station platform instead.

 

The fiddle yard to the right, which will go in front of the main fiddle yard, is to be a marshaling yard for military freight.  Warwell offloading, etc.  This will be serviced by the small fleet of SR engines I have.

 

I am completely open to criticism and critique, as this is just planning and nothing is to scale.  I purchased the Oxford station and SB a little while ago, so that's what I'm rolling with for those two buildings.

 

My skills are untested, so I don't want to bite off more than I can chew. 

 

Edited July 13, 2018 by Seanem44

[PatB]

Looks largely OK. One minor point that I'd mention is that, as shown, shunting the goods sidings will require use of the main line as a headshunt. Whilst not incorrect (AFAIK), this might be inconvenient, especially with heavy wartime traffic. Consider either shortening the sidings and joining the loop nearer the buffer stops or adding a separate headshunt parallel to the main.

 

Edit: Or sacrifice the loco shed and use that road.

Edited July 13, 2018 by PatB