Medium v. Large Radius Points in Country Terminus

[Seanem44]

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.

 

So obviously this is not to scale, and the head shunt should be longer, so I'll need further refinement, but something like this?  (Or, nix the ES and use that as a head shunt, which might look a little better and less cluttered)

 

[DCB]

I use the free edition of AnyRail. which has enough functionality for small / medium BLTs and the like.  I use it more for checking lengths and angles than as a way of actually designing a layout and do the final tracklaying very much by eye.

The run rounds at most full size GWR BLTs are very long 40/60 wagons long, the run round point is the first point at the country end of the layout, yet many model BLTs have tiny run round capability.

We have an 8ft long 00 gauge BLT,  I didn't do the original design, But with tweaks and deletion of two useless short sidings it works reasonably well. Most valuable tweak was lengthening the run round. The platform takes 4 X 57ft coaches plus a small Prairie. The run round only allowed the loco to run round 2 X 57 footers or 7 wagons   Moving the points allowed us to run round 4 X 57ft coaches or 12 wagons and the loco can still run round without leaving the main 8ft board.   That doesn't stop me running 20 wagon  trains, just makes shunting more interesting.

[Seanem44]

I use the free edition of AnyRail. which has enough functionality for small / medium BLTs and the like.  I use it more for checking lengths and angles than as a way of actually designing a layout and do the final tracklaying very much by eye.

The run rounds at most full size GWR BLTs are very long 40/60 wagons long, the run round point is the first point at the country end of the layout, yet many model BLTs have tiny run round capability.

We have an 8ft long 00 gauge BLT,  I didn't do the original design, But with tweaks and deletion of two useless short sidings it works reasonably well. Most valuable tweak was lengthening the run round. The platform takes 4 X 57ft coaches plus a small Prairie. The run round only allowed the loco to run round 2 X 57 footers or 7 wagons   Moving the points allowed us to run round 4 X 57ft coaches or 12 wagons and the loco can still run round without leaving the main 8ft board.   That doesn't stop me running 20 wagon  trains, just makes shunting more interesting.

Do you have a link to the layout or design?

[wagonman]

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.

 

 

Many (most?) branch line termini used the main running line as a headshunt – fine as long as you stay within station limits and suitable for the level of traffic on offer at the time. If wartime exigencies require another train to enter the station then the first one would have to be "locked in" until it arrived. Having a headshunt wouldn't make much difference. I'd suggest keeping the engine shed as the GWR tended to like the arrangement.

[Seanem44]

Many (most?) branch line termini used the main running line as a headshunt – fine as long as you stay within station limits and suitable for the level of traffic on offer at the time. If wartime exigencies require another train to enter the station then the first one would have to be "locked in" until it arrived. Having a headshunt wouldn't make much difference. I'd suggest keeping the engine shed as the GWR tended to like the arrangement.

Much appreciated...  is the Engine shed ok where it is located?

 

Also, was just reading the August edition of BRM.  In a very strange coincidence, the N Gauge layout Elmfield is featured and it is VERY similar to what I have drawn out.  Eerily similar.  Strange coincidence and timing. 

[DCB]

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. 

 

IMG_0422.jpg

Looks good.  Should work well.  I assume its 8ft scenic plus 6ft FY?   

 

I would slim down the military sidings to two roads not three, maybe two close together with loading access from both sides.   Operationally it will work with incoming trains shunting with the loco at the L/H end and assembling the outgoing train as a last step before running round.  I woudn't add a headshunt/spur, it looks fiddly and can be a darned nuisance as you stick the brake van in there and can't get it back out again.  You would not normally get two trains at a GW BLT together,  Traffic density would give a couple of hours for shunting time for the daily goods, three times a week goods in BR days, maybe run with the branch loco between passenger turns .

I find shunting the goods yard, I usually change almost all the wagons, and running a couple of passenger trains is a good operating session.

[Seanem44]

Looks good.  Should work well.  I assume its 8ft scenic plus 6ft FY?   

 

I would slim down the military sidings to two roads not three, maybe two close together with loading access from both sides.   Operationally it will work with incoming trains shunting with the loco at the L/H end and assembling the outgoing train as a last step before running round.  I woudn't add a headshunt/spur, it looks fiddly and can be a darned nuisance as you stick the brake van in there and can't get it back out again.  You would not normally get two trains at a GW BLT together,  Traffic density would give a couple of hours for shunting time for the daily goods, three times a week goods in BR days, maybe run with the branch loco between passenger turns .

I find shunting the goods yard, I usually change almost all the wagons, and running a couple of passenger trains is a good operating session.

Thank you for the advice.  I had thought about slimming the military yard as well.  And I am really just guessing on that.  There are such few prototypes and historical documentation of them, it is strictly artistic license for the sake of modelling and having it as an excuse to make the layout more wartime and give an excuse to have the warwells and shermans I purchased.

 

The overall size is too be determined.  I'm trying to make a compromise with my wife for a side of wall in our basement that would give me almost 20 ft, as opposed to the 14 I have in my man cave. 

 

I chose the wartime period because it fascinates me, isn't modelled quite as often, but also gives me the ability to be much more flexible with what I run and why.  So the Castle Class that I have that would rarely, if ever, be found at such a station, becomes a "Needs of the War Effort" situation where I can claim it's evacuating kids to the country side or whatever.  

Edited July 13, 2018 by Seanem44

[Joseph_Pestell]

I think the engine shed would be better where the signal box is. See Bodmin General for example.

 

But generally, it's a bit too stereotyped. If OP has that 20' length, something like Kingsbridge (but with the curve lessened to fit straight baseboards) would be much more interesting.

[wagonman]

Much appreciated...  is the Engine shed ok where it is located?

 

Also, was just reading the August edition of BRM.  In a very strange coincidence, the N Gauge layout Elmfield is featured and it is VERY similar to what I have drawn out.  Eerily similar.  Strange coincidence and timing. 

 

 

Ideally the access to the engine shed should be from the run-round loop – at Abingdon (from memory) it crossed the goods siding forming something like an outside slip. I guess that's not possible in Peco – I have no knowledge, not having used it for 50 years or so. The Bodmin suggestion is a good one as long as you weren't using the engine shed to block the view of the exit to the fiddle yard. The signal box could move to the end of the platform. When laying the military sidings remember that the engine shed was there first – it might affect the geometry.

 

I still don't see the need for a headshunt, especially such a vestigial one  though there would need to be a trap point there. The GWR did sometimes use a very short siding as a trap in that position, but usually only on main lines.

 

Most branch lines would have had weight restrictions that precluded the use of a Castle (or any other 4-6-0 except the Manor class) even in wartime.

 

What else? Oh yeah, Sherman tanks are OK, I believe, but anything larger wouldn't fit the UK loading gauge! Don't forget a Nissen hut or two! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nissen_hut

[Harlequin]

I think the engine shed would be better where the signal box is. See Bodmin General for example.

 

But generally, it's a bit too stereotyped. If OP has that 20' length, something like Kingsbridge (but with the curve lessened to fit straight baseboards) would be much more interesting.

I have a sense of Deja Vu...

[kevinlms]

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.

By laying out the points and working out the space required for loco releases and the like, you start to realise how quickly any length of the layout disappears. If your not careful, train length (the leftovers!)will become quite short, surprisingly quickly.

[wagonman]

I forgot to add that the military sidings would of course be fenced off with access through a gate, probably with some sort of basic guard house. War is Hell...

[Seanem44]

Ideally the access to the engine shed should be from the run-round loop – at Abingdon (from memory) it crossed the goods siding forming something like an outside slip. I guess that's not possible in Peco – I have no knowledge, not having used it for 50 years or so. The Bodmin suggestion is a good one as long as you weren't using the engine shed to block the view of the exit to the fiddle yard. The signal box could move to the end of the platform. When laying the military sidings remember that the engine shed was there first – it might affect the geometry.

 

I still don't see the need for a headshunt, especially such a vestigial one  though there would need to be a trap point there. The GWR did sometimes use a very short siding as a trap in that position, but usually only on main lines.

 

Most branch lines would have had weight restrictions that precluded the use of a Castle (or any other 4-6-0 except the Manor class) even in wartime.

 

What else? Oh yeah, Sherman tanks are OK, I believe, but anything larger wouldn't fit the UK loading gauge! Don't forget a Nissen hut or two! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nissen_hut

Yep...  aware of the gauge restrictions.  IIR, there were a few that supported the weight, but they were few and far between.

 

Looking at my design, it is quite similar to Bodmin.  Moving the engine shed to the North will make it a little cleaner on the South Side and not as busy.

 

Yeah... the layout is starting to look cliché, but I am hoping the wartime atmospehere and inclusion of the military yard at the very least sets it apart from being "just another BLT".

Edited July 13, 2018 by Seanem44

[Seanem44]

I forgot to add that the military sidings would of course be fenced off with access through a gate, probably with some sort of basic guard house. War is Hell...

Indeed... already thought of that.  Concertina wire, or something to that effect.  Also gives me a reason to add some of my American brethren to a British railway layout

[wagonman]

Yep...  aware of the gauge restrictions.  IIR, there were a few that supported the weight, but they were few and far between.

 

Looking at my design, it is quite similar to Bodmin.  Moving the engine shed to the North will make it a little cleaneron the South Side and not as busy.

 

Yeah... the layout is starting to look cliché, but I am hoping the wartime atmospehere and inclusion of the military yard at the very least sets it apart from being "just another BLT".

 

 

Branch line termini were much of a muchness. How many combinations of a platform, a loop, a few sidings and maybe an engine shed can there be? And as you say, the military off shoot is very different. I suggest it's the details that will set your layout apart. Oh, by the way, the mileage (coal etc) siding could be longer. :-)

 

Good luck!

[Joseph_Pestell]

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

 

Not you. Peco advertise it as medium radius which suggests 36" radius like the turnouts.

[Seanem44]

Branch line termini were much of a muchness. How many combinations of a platform, a loop, a few sidings and maybe an engine shed can there be? And as you say, the military off shoot is very different. I suggest it's the details that will set your layout apart. Oh, by the way, the mileage (coal etc) siding could be longer. :-)

 

Good luck!

Hmmm... I originally had this layout looking similar to Ruxley, if you are familiar with that layout. How about putting the point for that siding also on the main runaround siding in the station. So essentially, one turnout for that siding, then after that siding, the one for the goods shed?

Edited July 13, 2018 by Seanem44

[coachmann]

The obvious thing to me was to place a small radius point on top of a double slip.  Result!  

[bike2steam]

That plan puts me in mind of ;-  http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/61841-lulworth-castle-1930s-to-2000s/?hl=lulworth 

[Mike Storey]

I agree with much that has been said, particularly matching large radius for the main, with medium for the sidings and run-round, to ensure there is a visual contrast, important when trying to convey the real thing.

 

But much depends on what is most important to you - the static image of the track in situ, or the image of rolling stock as it traverses the points (and curves). Personally, my greatest gripe is the view of passenger bogie stock traversing any Code 75 Peco points, so I went for Peco Code 83 #8 for main line points, whereas Code 75 (the new BH range) large radii is OK for freight stock moves and light engines in sidings/yards. The Code 83 is not going to please the purists for its look as British track, but a bit of sculpting with a knife and substantial ballast and weathering hides enough of its US origins for me.

[Rivercider]

Thank you for the advice.  I had thought about slimming the military yard as well.  And I am really just guessing on that.  There are such few prototypes and historical documentation of them, it is strictly artistic license for the sake of modelling and having it as an excuse to make the layout more wartime and give an excuse to have the warwells and shermans I purchased.

 

The overall size is too be determined.  I'm trying to make a compromise with my wife for a side of wall in our basement that would give me almost 20 ft, as opposed to the 14 I have in my man cave. 

 

I chose the wartime period because it fascinates me, isn't modelled quite as often, but also gives me the ability to be much more flexible with what I run and why.  So the Castle Class that I have that would rarely, if ever, be found at such a station, becomes a "Needs of the War Effort" situation where I can claim it's evacuating kids to the country side or whatever.  

Additional loops, yards, and sidings, appeared all over the system during WWII, often at short notice.

 

The Brixham branch gained an Air Ministry fuel depot in 1940, half a mile from Brixham.

edit - and the Brixham branch gives a nice example where the loco shed had closed in 1929, I think the shed and siding were both removed

but you could always demolish the shed, but keep the siding.

 

 

On the Exmouth branch (SR I know) the sidings at Newcourt were requested by the  US Navy on 2nd Oct 1943, and completed (with signalling)

by the evening of 6th Oct 1943!

 

cheers

Edited July 13, 2018 by Rivercider

[Norm81]

I got round this by opting for large radius curved points, it has introduced an 's' bend but hopefully it will be nice and sweeping.

[DCB]

Ideally the access to the engine shed should be from the run-round loop – at Abingdon (from memory) it crossed the goods siding forming something like an outside slip. I guess that's not possible in Peco – I have no knowledge, not having used it for 50 years or so. The Bodmin suggestion is a good one as long as you weren't using the engine shed to block the view of the exit to the fiddle yard. The signal box could move to the end of the platform. When laying the military sidings remember that the engine shed was there first – it might affect the geometry.

 

I still don't see the need for a headshunt, especially such a vestigial one  though there would need to be a trap point there. The GWR did sometimes use a very short siding as a trap in that position, but usually only on main lines.

 

Most branch lines would have had weight restrictions that precluded the use of a Castle (or any other 4-6-0 except the Manor class) even in wartime.

 

What else? Oh yeah, Sherman tanks are OK, I believe, but anything larger wouldn't fit the UK loading gauge! Don't forget a Nissen hut or two! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nissen_hut

 

Bodmin is an excellent subject for a model.  I remember one on the exhibition circuit, beautifully detailed and operated by someone totally clueless.   Its a terminus used by through trains, they come up from Bodmin Road, run round and go back down to Boscarne Junction, both Passenger and goods. Everything from Boscarne has to use the passenger platform road, they ran round in less than 10 minutes. Nowadays with preservation its more like 30.

 

The engine shed is usually on a kick back to stop the engine escaping.  There were instances of locos in light steam setting off by themselves in the early 1800s, also the loco would sometimes need to buffer up to a stop bock and slip the wheels to pump water into the boiler before injectors became common,   Shorter hours for enginemen saw the demise of the small engine shed though I believe Princetown survived in use until closure in 1955.

 

Castles on a branch is a bit unlikely, one got to Andoversford on the Cheltenham Kingham line, and they got to Marlborough on the MSWJR but neither are terminus's and Andoversford was Red anyway and had 72XX through and 94XX on the daily goods. Manors are equally unlikely, they were not branch engines, long single track cross country lines were their territory, MSWJR and Cambrian, as was piloting in south Devon, Kingswear and Newquay were about the only south of England branches they were found on and Newquay had Castles and Kingswear Kings as well, oddly 2251 "Collett Goods" and Dean Goods were even rarer in Devon and Cornwall, only 2251 was based in Devon and Cornwall and that at Exeter which worked to Taunton and sometimes filled in for a 51XX on the locals to Newton Abbott. It may have got to Kingswear but I haven't seen any evidence. 2251 worked on the Fairford Branch but that had a turntable so they could turn.  45/55XX small prairies were the main Branch Locos. 57XX were Blue engines under the GW (yellow in BR days) and too heavy so the old 2021 and new 74XX were branch panniers.

 

Nissen huts are curved metal sheeting formed over curved formers and tensioned at the bottom with steel wires. Easily transported in sections in a 12 t wagon or 2 ton lorry so don't use built up Nissen huts as wagon loads!

[Geep7]

I can definitely also recommend Anyrail. You can download it free here: https://www.anyrail.com/en

 

No connection other than a very happy user.

[Seanem44]

Ok... Came up with a design.  Looks like it will be closer to 14 feet.  I'm being conservative and going with only 13.

 

This layout utilizes a large radius at the throat.  The runaround will accommodate four coaches, which I feel is pretty generous.  You really lose space quick.  I'm wondering if I should just nix the engine shed...

 

Anyhow, let me know what you all think.