Beginner, Terminus plan

[Titanius Anglesmith]

"Whatever the question, we usually end up with Minories!"

 - TonyMay, RMWeb

 

Greetings All,

 

I had made a "beginner's" thread previously, but after much contemplation the topic, my available space, and my criteria have diverged quite drastically. With some reluctance (unfounded, perhaps?), I concede that a modular, Minories-inspired terminus-to-fiddle yard may be the answer. I apologise to the old hands who are probably watching this unfold with a tedious inevitability. 

 

As I will shortly be in a position to start making baseboards, I thought I should seek the experts' thumbs-up before work commences. I will be keeping Harlequin's very helpful Minories PDF close at hand. However for the station throat I have unscrupulously pilfered drawn inspiration from Clive Mortimore's elegant Sheffield Exchange Mk1 (with some adjustments).

 

Rather than an urban setting, I envisage a country-end terminus with small goods yard. I hasten to add that I do not consider my end result to be a true Minories.

 

Despite my numerous ineptitudes I somehow cobbled together these two crude plans on Anyrail, with terminus on the left and terminus on the right:

 

 

Terminus on the left would be a bit more practical in my available space, but I think the track flows better with the terminus on the right (I'm also aware that I haven't trapped the exit of the L/H goods yard). 

 I have seen the Minories plan with the kick-back yard, but I'm not sure how keen I am about that. 

 

Some notes on the above, in no particular order:

1. The layout has to be OO gauge, that's non-negotiable. See Rule 1A below. 

2. In case it's not clear, the roads from top to bottom are: Bay, Platform 1, Platform 2, 2x goods sidings. 

3. The grid squares are 6". A 10' 6" length is just about the limit. I am naively optimistic that one day I'll be able to extend by adding intermediate boards. 

4. Short trains are a necessary compromise. Biggest loco probably an 0-6-0 tender engine or at a stretch a 4-4-0. Mostly I'll be using tank locos. 

5. I intend to use something like a 3 or 4 road Denny-style fiddle yard (i.e. lift-out), sat on top of a traverser. I'd prefer points to a traverser but I acknowledge that length is limited. 

6. I have sacrificed the loco spur. If/when there is layover operation, the layover loco can stand on the departure line. I understand there were prototypes for this (Cardiff?). 

7. I acknowledge that shunting the yard will necessitate using the running line as a headshunt, probably going into the fiddle yard. I think I prefer this to using a dedicated headshunt, which in any case will be too short. 

8. DC control, electrofrog points. Points to be electrically operated. I've assumed Peco Streamline Code 75. Any reason I should or should not use code 100?

9. Intended era is 1920s/30s LMS, although the infrastructure and signalling may be pre-grouping (MR, maybe?).

10. I have some ideas for the signalling, but that will follow later. I may signal the bay as departure-only, in line with general practice at the time. 

11. Finally, Rule 1A applies - Dad's railway. My late father left his extensive OO gauge collection to my brother and I. I want this layout to be a continuation of what he started; that mandates using his locos and rolling stock, come what may. 

 

Any thoughts from the experts? Have I made any daft errors? This will be my first layout although I have a little experience with Dad's, so I'll be seeking lots of advice along the way. Through this forum I have learnt that Dad's methods were not necessarily the best... (but conversely showing that there's more than one way to skin the proverbial). 

 

Thanks in advance!

Edited June 28, 2019 by Titanius Anglesmith

[The Johnster]

It’ll work, but I’m struggling a bit with visualising the situation.  A double track line, presumably a secondary main line since it isn’t a Minories, terminates in a medium size town.  But if the traffic requires a double track, the goods yard needs a headshunt so that it can be worked without interfering with traffic on the running line.

 

You can get around the shortness of the goods yard headshunt by shortening the sidings; this will ease the situation and the bulk of the shunting can now be done within the confines if the yard. 

 

Incoming traffic cannot access the goods yard without occupying a platform road and setting back. I’d single the main line, and use the erstwhile outgoing road as a headshunt for both the goods yard and station pilot movements.  

 

A Midland feel plays to your small engine needs, and is a very good idea. 

 

[Zomboid]

Is the third platform critical? I would consider something like Ilfracombe, which had a 2 track approach and only a main & bay platform arrangement. I don't know off hand where the freight was handled, but the off peak service would have been quiet enough that shunting on the main would have worked ok, and on summer Saturdays I imagine there would be no space in the timetable for freights.

[The Johnster]

Goods yard at Ilfracombe was on the eastern side of the station, the 'town' side.  One might wonder that no harbour branch was ever put in, but the geography forbids it.

 

A platform that can deal with peak passenger traffic and parcels at other times is a not uncommon arrangement.

Edited June 28, 2019 by The Johnster

[Harlequin]

The run round in the right-handed terminus is very small, limiting the size of both passenger and goods trains. Remember that Minories didn't have any run round loops. It relied on pilot locos to shift carriages and the goods depots that it acquired in later variants were all kickback arrangements, so that the hauling loco could never get trapped in the goods yard.

 

The main problem you've got is the very tight space constraint. If you want reasonable length trains then you need to maximise the use of the space. E.g. start the throat pointwork as soon as you possibly can on entry to the scene, try to combine functions where possible, and exploit the depth of the baseboards if you can.

 

On the other hand you might make a feature of only having very short trains arrive at the station. That would be unusual and quirky and would give you a bit more room to breathe.

 

 

Edited June 29, 2019 by Harlequin

[DCB]

I think I like the terminus on the left, but I would shove everything to the left, lop 18" off the left hand end and add it to the right so the pointwork can serve all 3 platforms a bit like the original Minories.  The crossover should be trailing between platforms and I would add loco turning and watering facilities, no coal but pits for fire cleaning/ oiling round. 

I would let the traverser over run the baseboard edge abd go for 6 tracks or a cassette yard.  The drawback of the plan is all shunting will be onto the traverser, but plenty/ most terminus stations had to use the main line anyway. Even Carlisle Citadel had only a two track throat at the north end where Waverley Route trains etc trains terminated.   If u can avoid using Mk1s and use 57 foot coaches, Collett and Stanier, Maunsell etc or even shorter ones it  will help this look bigger as will small locos, 2Ps 4Fs etc  forn the Midland, maybe George the Fifths, Cauliflowers, Watford tanks, Coal Tanks for the LNWR.  LMS didn't really mean much away from main lines except 2ps and 4Fs until the Stamier era essentially late 30s after your period.   Wouldn't stop me using a Hughes 4-6-4T or two though

As this is a cramped urban terminus cramming plenty of track in won't look as wrong as a cramped BLT and I would only model a backscene beyond the railway fence unless a town square over the traverser floats a boat.

See my doodle.

Peak times all 3 platfoms in use, Morning and Evening.  Pilot engine takes stock away to carriage sidings or brings from carriage sidings (Traverser)  Off peak loco runs round and does its own shunting.  Likewise goods runs round in platform road off peak or at night.

[Titanius Anglesmith]

Thanks for the comments everyone. 

 

My LH plan takes some of its cues from the LT&SR terminus at Shoeburyness. It was double track, originally two platforms with a bay added in the early 1900s. There was a modest goods yard of 4 or 5 sidings, though it was on the up side whereas I've put mine on the down side. There was no headshunt. As the station building was on the up side, most off-peak trains crossed over and terminated in the "up" platform. Therefore the "facing" crossover between the platforms was actually trailing for the majority of trains. There was also a loco shed, and later extensive carriage sidings; both of which I'm happy to omit in my imaginary station. 

 

I will reply more directly to some of the comments later when time allows.

 

Thanks

[Harlequin]

Hi TA,

 

I had some thoughts:

 

There's always the temptation with small layouts to cram the baseboards full of track work. This means that the scenic elements are inevitably compromised and the layout gets pushed into over-familiar patterns, such as saying that the setting is urban, to explain the tightness. So to fit your desired rural setting better, it might be best to keep it simple (be ruthless and only keep what you really need) and don't push the track out to the very edges, leave room for non-railway surroundings to set the scene.

 

It's normally most satisfying to have all the station pointwork on scene (IMHO) but that's not always possible with small layouts. If you have a traverser it can take on the role of some of the points. If the outermost crossover in a double-track feed is trailing (as it is in Minories) then it is only really used to get outbound traffic onto the Up track and is not a fundamental element of the work within the station. So, as a reasonable compromise you could omit a trailing crossover from the scenic area.

 

The bay platform (if you really have to have one...) does not need to be connected inside both the crossovers (real or notional) because it would probably only be used for departures. E.g. small passenger trains would arrive in one of the main platforms then shunt to the bay before later departing.

 

I have sketched something out along those lines. Is it OK to post it here?

 

[AndyB]

Taking points 8 & 11.

You mention Code 75 or 100. But also mention that you've inherited your dad's collection of locos. 

Depending on their age you might want to consider if they'll run ok on Code 75.  The wheels may potentially be a wee bit chunky for 75. 

Andy

[Titanius Anglesmith]

2 hours ago, Harlequin said:

Hi TA,

 

I had some thoughts:

 

There's always the temptation with small layouts to cram the baseboards full of track work. This means that the scenic elements are inevitably compromised and the layout gets pushed into over-familiar patterns, such as saying that the setting is urban, to explain the tightness. So to fit your desired rural setting better, it might be best to keep it simple (be ruthless and only keep what you really need) and don't push the track out to the very edges, leave room for non-railway surroundings to set the scene.

 

It's normally most satisfying to have all the station pointwork on scene (IMHO) but that's not always possible with small layouts. If you have a traverser it can take on the role of some of the points. If the outermost crossover in a double-track feed is trailing (as it is in Minories) then it is only really used to get outbound traffic onto the Up track and is not a fundamental element of the work within the station. So, as a reasonable compromise you could omit a trailing crossover from the scenic area.

 

The bay platform (if you really have to have one...) does not need to be connected inside both the crossovers (real or notional) because it would probably only be used for departures. E.g. small passenger trains would arrive in one of the main platforms then shunt to the bay before later departing.

 

I have sketched something out along those lines. Is it OK to post it here?

 

 

I think I haven't explained my reasoning very well in my opening post, I'm quite good at missing things like that. Ultimately I want a small layout with some interesting operating potential where I can run some of Dad's stock. Somewhat to my own surprise I've been won-over by the Minories concept. Your own PDF played no small part in that, in conjunction with Clive Mortimore's Sheffield Exchange Mk1. Minories has a small footprint, visually interesting track layout and lots of operating potential. However the typical urban setting doesn't appeal, although I fully appreciate the reasoning behind it. The R/H plan that I drew is simply Clive's "Minories in four points" with goods sidings in place of the loco spur (and on a wider baseboard in consequence). Then I added the platform release crossover so that I'm not limited to relying on a pilot or layover loco. 

 

That's why, if I'm absolutely honest, I'm surprised by some of the comments (criticisms?) made earlier in the thread, as they would apply equally to the much lauded Minories. 

 

Moving on from my damaged pride, I still haven't figured out how to split quotes up on my phone, so......

 

It's normally most satisfying to have all the station pointwork on scene (IMHO) but that's not always possible with small layouts. If you have a traverser it can take on the role of some of the points.

 

I appreciate that, but I would strongly wish for the pointwork to remain on scene. As you suggested earlier, the pointwork can be shifted as close to the scenic edge as possible to maximise the platforms. 

 

The bay platform (if you really have to have one...) does not need to be connected inside both the crossovers (real or notional) because it would probably only be used for departures. E.g. small passenger trains would arrive in one of the main platforms then shunt to the bay before later departing.

 

The bay is desirable as it is a part of the Minories core, but not absolutely necessary. I agree that it doesn't need to be served by the arrival line; I suggested in the opening post that I may signal it departure-only despite the physical connection to the down line being available (I'm in two minds about that. The additional shunt moves required would be interesting). 

 

I have sketched something out along those lines. Is it OK to post it here?

 

Absolutely, please do. 

 

1 hour ago, AndyB said:

Taking points 8 & 11.

You mention Code 75 or 100. But also mention that you've inherited your dad's collection of locos. 

Depending on their age you might want to consider if they'll run ok on Code 75.  The wheels may potentially be a wee bit chunky for 75. 

Andy

 

Dad was quite ruthless about upgrading his locos when an improved version was released, so most of his locos are fairly recent. However there is a Deeley Flatiron 0-6-4T of unknown provenance which is likely a kit-build. Coaching stock I'm not so sure. 

 

I wont lose any sleep by using code 100 over 75, but I read on here that code 75 peco slips are a lot better than their 100 equivalents. 

 

Thanks again for the replies.  

[The Johnster]

The Flatiron is probably a Wills (nowadays South Eastern) 'bodyline' kit designed to run on a Hornby Dublo R1 0-6-0 chassis.  If this is the case, and your dad has replaced the original wheels with Romfords, you will be able to see this from the fact that the centre wheelset is flanged; the original HD ones were flangeless.  Either should be ok on code 100 rail, and Romfords would probably manage code 75, but not Hornby Dublos.

 

Any criticism from me was intended to be constructive, but sometimes I'm not brilliant at explaining myself either; I apologise and had no intention to damage your pride.  Minories is a classic operator's layout for a very good reason; it works very well, but is really rooted in the innercity suburban terminus concept, and my impression is that you are looking for something more like a secondary main line terminating in a medium to large size town rather than the mean streets of the inner city...

 

 

[Harlequin]

Hmmm, well, I'm not sure that my idea is going to suit you in that case. The basic thoughts are still valid so I'll get back to you if I can come up with something better.

 

I wonder if your requirements are making things difficult: It seems to me that a double track line is most likely to terminate either in a town or city or at the coast and I'm not sure how likely the latter was for the Midland. Also, by inserting a loco release crossover you will seriously shorten the lengths of passenger trains you can handle in such a tight space. Minories (in the same 7ft length, note) avoids a release crossover partly to save space and partly to make operation more interesting.

 

The Minories "bay" was originally a spur for the pilot loco.

 

BTW: Should we assume that the layout is against a wall?

 

[Guest Jack Benson]

 

.

 

On the other hand, a mild variation of Minories is worth consideration even if rejected, it has the potential to provide inspiration.

 

The Caterham branch is also worth a look-see, if only as a example of the prototype. 

 

 

 

Try this excellent blog for more ideas:- ESNGBLOG

 

Cheers

 

Jack

Edited June 30, 2019 by Jack Benson

[Titanius Anglesmith]

3 hours ago, The Johnster said:

The Flatiron is probably a Wills (nowadays South Eastern) 'bodyline' kit designed to run on a Hornby Dublo R1 0-6-0 chassis.  If this is the case, and your dad has replaced the original wheels with Romfords.....

 

Thanks for the info. I'll take a look at it next time I'm visiting. 

 

Quote

Any criticism from me was intended to be constructive, but sometimes I'm not brilliant at explaining myself either; I apologise and had no intention to damage your pride.  Minories is a classic operator's layout for a very good reason; it works very well, but is really rooted in the innercity suburban terminus.....

 

 

 

Any comments regarding my feelings can be taken as tongue firmly in cheek. Of course, this is the internet so I reserve the right to be insulted by the most innocuous of comments.......  

 

3 hours ago, Harlequin said:

Hmmm, well, I'm not sure that my idea is going to suit you in that case. The basic thoughts are still valid so I'll get back to you if I can come up with something better.

 

I wonder if your requirements are making things difficult: It seems to me that a double track line is most likely to terminate either in a town or city or at the coast and I'm not sure how likely the latter was for the Midland. Also, by inserting a loco release crossover you will seriously shorten the lengths of passenger trains you can handle in such a tight space. Minories (in the same 7ft length, note) avoids a release crossover partly to save space and partly to make operation more interesting.

 

The Minories "bay" was originally a spur for the pilot loco.

 

BTW: Should we assume that the layout is against a wall?

 

 

Difficult? Moi? Never!

 

I'll cite Shoeburyness again, it was double track terminating in a small town on the coast (well, river estuary). The LT&SR was bought out by the Midland in 1912.

 

My platform runaround is short I admit, but it doesn't of course impede on operating like Minories. By "bay", what I really meant was a third platform. Poor terminology on my part. You assume correct that the layout is against a wall. 

 

2 hours ago, Jack Benson said:

 

.

 

On the other hand, a mild variation of Minories is worth consideration even if rejected, it has the potential to provide inspiration.

 

The Caterham branch is also worth a look-see, if only as a example of the prototype. 

 

 

 

Try this excellent blog for more ideas:- ESNGBLOG

 

Cheers

 

Jack

 

Interesting examples, thank you. 

Edited June 30, 2019 by Titanius Anglesmith

[Titanius Anglesmith]

I've been giving this some more consideration, much to SWMBO's irritation.  Following Jack Benson's suggestion I've been trying to recreate Harestone on anyrail.  Admittedly I'm exceptionally clumsy with anyrail, but I can't get it to work as smoothly as it does in the sketch without sacrificing platform length, and that's after canning most of the sidings.  I think the wide island platform might be hampering in my efforts?  Also the raw trackplan (before platforms etc are added) ends up being very similar to what I've already drawn.

 

I've had a shift about in my space, which means it's probably best to have the terminus at the right hand end after all.  I've had another fiddle with my original plan (I'm giving it another go before I give up with it!!), the one pilfered from Sheffield Exchange.....

I've shifted the pointwork as close to the scenic edge as I dare

I've curved the platforms slightly so that they're not aimed directly at the top corner

I've binned one goods siding (as much as I'd prefer two).  The siding should really be parallel with the platform edge, but you get the gist.

I'm willing to bin the rear-most / top platform if necessary.  It is perilously close to the backscene.

The traverser as drawn is for illustrative purposes only.

To make things clearer I've crayon'd in the platforms, a small station building and a signal box.  As drawn the platforms are about 3" wide, and a bit more than 42" long.  I acknowledge that the runaround is still short; it may just be used for reversing goods trains.  For the building I imagine a small wooden structure, again like Shoeburyness.

 

 

Thanks in advance for any comments

[Flying Pig]

3 hours ago, Titanius Anglesmith said:

I acknowledge that the runaround is still short; it may just be used for reversing goods trains.

 

Your runround is short, but it's in proportion with your fiddle yard.  I reckon you have about 36", which is ample for 3 LMS carriages (say 2x57' and a 60' compo); you might squeeze in a short van as tail load, provided the loco is no bigger than, say, a 2P.

 

As regards track layout, I'd ditch the 3-way and put a point opposite the slip, with a bay on the departure side.  This will save a couple of inches and cost you nothing in platform length. Then I'd delete the bay on the arrival side and extend the main platform.

 

That leaves goods.  I think I'd imagine something similar to New Brighton as shown on the signal plans in flyingsignalman's post here, with a third line entering the layout and running behind the platforms as goods reception/headshunt.  You could connect it with a facing crossover to the left of the slip (you  still need to imagine the crossover offscene that allows goods trains to depart), or leave it entirely separate.  Additional sidings behind as space allows - I think you will have to resign yourself to representing only part of the good facilities at a station this size.

 

[Titanius Anglesmith]

On 04/07/2019 at 03:11, Flying Pig said:

As regards track layout, I'd ditch the 3-way and put a point opposite the slip, with a bay on the departure side.  This will save a couple of inches and cost you nothing in platform length. Then I'd delete the bay on the arrival side and extend the main platform.

 

I tried this and and it’s a great suggestion, it makes the flow of the line into the bay far, far better.

 

But........

 

On 04/07/2019 at 03:11, Flying Pig said:

That leaves goods.  I think I'd imagine something similar to New Brighton as shown on the signal plans in flyingsignalman's post here, with a third line entering the layout and running behind the platforms as goods reception/headshunt.    ................ I think you will have to resign yourself to representing only part of the good facilities at a station this size.

 

The sidings are something I’d really like to keep on-scene rather than just the headshunt or reception. On reflection i think I’d be happier sacrificing the bay altogether in favour of a second goods siding. I did draw it up but I’ll have to post it another time. 

 

On 30/06/2019 at 14:00, The Johnster said:

The Flatiron is probably a Wills (nowadays South Eastern) 'bodyline' kit designed to run on a Hornby Dublo R1 0-6-0 chassis.  If this is the case, and your dad has replaced the original wheels with Romfords, you will be able to see this from the fact that the centre wheelset is flanged; the original HD ones were flangeless.  Either should be ok on code 100 rail, and Romfords would probably manage code 75, but not Hornby Dublos.

 

I had look while I was visiting over the weekend...... it turns out it’s a Bachman chassis. For what it’s worth, the centre drivers are flanged. 

[Flying Pig]

5 minutes ago, Titanius Anglesmith said:

The sidings are something I’d really like to keep on-scene rather than just the headshunt or reception. On reflection i think I’d be happier sacrificing the bay altogether in favour of a second goods siding. I did draw it up but I’ll have to post it another time. 

 

 

I imagined there being goods sidings alongside the reception line as at New Brighton - I just didn't include them in the sketch.  I think they might fit better with the goods road in front of the platforms, however.

[The Johnster]

3 hours ago, Titanius Anglesmith said:

 

I tried this and and it’s a great suggestion, it makes the flow of the line into the bay far, far better.

 

But........

 

 

The sidings are something I’d really like to keep on-scene rather than just the headshunt or reception. On reflection i think I’d be happier sacrificing the bay altogether in favour of a second goods siding. I did draw it up but I’ll have to post it another time. 

 

 

I had look while I was visiting over the weekend...... it turns out it’s a Bachman chassis. For what it’s worth, the centre drivers are flanged. 

This is good news; a Bachmann chassis will give you pretty good running and will manage with both Code 100 and code 75 rail.  

[Titanius Anglesmith]

51 minutes ago, The Johnster said:

This is good news; a Bachmann chassis will give you pretty good running and will manage with both Code 100 and code 75 rail.  

 

Good to know, thanks

[Titanius Anglesmith]

For completeness, Flying Pig's suggestion of a bay connecting opposite the slip.  Much better than my bay behind the main platforms:

 

 

But alas, I'm trying not to overcrowd the scene.  As mentioned previously, here's two platform roads with two goods sidings (apologies for the aesthetic crudeness):

 

 

The grid squares represent 6".  As drawn, there's about 6" between the goods sidings at the widest point.  I did try spurring the sidings off "the point opposite the slip", but I can't get it very tidy once I've included a trap.  I think this one's my front unless anyone convinces me otherwise.

[Harlequin]

Well, for what it's worth, here's the idea that I didn't think you'd like before:

 

 

The idea was to deliberately make it small, simple and a bit quirky: Only handling small trains of two coaches and a small van at the most (the traverser only really allows small trains anyway) and not pushing the tracks out to the very edges, to leave a bit of room to breathe.

 

As I explained above, assuming that the incoming lines are double track then the trailing crossover required to get outgoing traffic onto the correct track can be imaginary and actually implemented by the traverser. This saves space.

 

(Interestingly, the lack of the trailing crossover on scene also allows you to treat the incoming lines as single up/down and headshunt instead if you want.)

 

The splayed run round loop is part of the quirkiness but also helps with run round clearance. Only one platform but you do have a departure bay.

 

You could possibly add a kickback siding to the bottom goods line heading towards the signal box, just to make shunting more difficult and thus operation more "interesting"... ;-)

 

[Flying Pig]

20 hours ago, Titanius Anglesmith said:

But alas, I'm trying not to overcrowd the scene.  As mentioned previously, here's two platform roads with two goods sidings (apologies for the aesthetic crudeness):

 



 

The grid squares represent 6".  As drawn, there's about 6" between the goods sidings at the widest point.  I did try spurring the sidings off "the point opposite the slip", but I can't get it very tidy once I've included a trap.  I think this one's my front unless anyone convinces me otherwise.

 

This is fine, though you would gain a longer runround by using a 'normal' release crossover: it's a wee bit short with the crossover reversed as drawn. I do think the goods yard is a bit anaemic for the size of station.

[Titanius Anglesmith]

19 hours ago, Harlequin said:

Well, for what it's worth, here's the idea that I didn't think you'd like before:

 

 

The idea was to deliberately make it small, simple and a bit quirky: Only handling small trains of two coaches and a small van at the most (the traverser only really allows small trains anyway) and not pushing the tracks out to the very edges, to leave a bit of room to breathe.

 

As I explained above, assuming that the incoming lines are double track then the trailing crossover required to get outgoing traffic onto the correct track can be imaginary and actually implemented by the traverser. This saves space.

 

(Interestingly, the lack of the trailing crossover on scene also allows you to treat the incoming lines as single up/down and headshunt instead if you want.)

 

The splayed run round loop is part of the quirkiness but also helps with run round clearance. Only one platform but you do have a departure bay.

 

You could possibly add a kickback siding to the bottom goods line heading towards the signal box, just to make shunting more difficult and thus operation more "interesting"... ;-)

 

 

I do like it, and I very much appreciate the effort you went to, so thank you!!  Your plans have a relaxed yet purposeful fluidity that I simply cannot achieve.  But I regret to say, as we discussed before, the off-scene / imaginary "crossover" is a bit too far far for me.  I fully appreciate the reasons for it, but I have an irrational compulsion to keep the throat in its entirety on scene.  I think it's the train disappearing from the scene "wrong-road" that bugs me.

 

24 minutes ago, Flying Pig said:

 

This is fine, though you would gain a longer runround by using a 'normal' release crossover: it's a wee bit short with the crossover reversed as drawn. I do think the goods yard is a bit anaemic for the size of station.

 

I've taken some cues from the steam-era layout of Shoeburyness.  The crossover can be seen here:

 

http://sunnyfield.co.uk/dayspast/view_item.php?ref=tr064&section=Essex 

 

It was normal practice at Shoeburyness for off-peak trains to terminate in right-hand platform due to the station building being on this side.  During the rush trains would also use the left-hand platform.  Interestingly, in the early days there was no walkway behind the stops.  Passengers needing the L/H platform had to either use the barrow crossing or use a separate access road behind the platform.  I agree that the yard is a bit feeble.

[Harlequin]

22 minutes ago, Titanius Anglesmith said:

 

But I regret to say, as we discussed before, the off-scene / imaginary "crossover" is a bit too far far for me.  I fully appreciate the reasons for it, but I have an irrational compulsion to keep the throat in its entirety on scene.  I think it's the train disappearing from the scene "wrong-road" that bugs me.

 

I agree, to be honest, but it's very difficult to keep it all on scene in the space available whilst also having the release crossover.

 

If you could avoid using the slip to turn the mainline (somehow) your design would be much smoother. The turning routes through the slips should really only be used for exceptional (light engine) moves not mainline moves, especially the very tight radius Peco slips.