Simple OO Gauge Test Layout

[Harlequin]

If you are no longer committed to an existing baseboard then is there an opportunity to ease the track plan a bit? (I’m thinking of that ugly sharp corner on the right...  ) And then to make the new baseboard give the trackplan just a bit more room to breathe? Just 50mm for a bit of scenery outside the track would do wonders!

 

I notice that passenger access to the halt platform is a bit tricky. That could move outside the circuit if you had the space...

 

[petejones]

Or how about a platform either side with a barrow crossing for the passengers to cross from one side to the other (it's a quiet line), keep the goods sidings separate with access via the crossing?

 

[petejones]

5 hours ago, Harlequin said:

I’m thinking of that ugly sharp corner on the right

 

Yes it is a bit tight - a radius 1 curve. I'm hoping to cover some of it with a cutting, at the farthest of the curves.

 

I've added a little more room round the edges. I don't mind the lower platform being right on the edge as it's a hard, straight edge and the back of the platform has some nice brickwork anyway.

[petejones]

I probably also need a weighbridge and hut:

 

[The Johnster]

11 hours ago, petejones said:

Thanks for the feedback. How's this? Is it OK for one of the sidings to be at an angle, as I've done?

 

Absolutely; this was a very common arrangement.  Being pernickety now, your signal box is the wrong way around in that the steps should be at the other end, or at least angled parallel to the end gable, as you are still compromising the signalman's view of the road approaches.

 

We're getting there...

[petejones]

1 minute ago, The Johnster said:

Being pernickety now, your signal box is the wrong way around in that the steps should be at the other end

 

Unfortunately that's how the model I have is designed.

[petejones]

12 hours ago, The Johnster said:

And you still need signals to control and protect the turnout leading to the goods yard.

 

Wouldn't this be protected by a shunt signal? I've not put those on yet.

[The Johnster]

1 minute ago, petejones said:

 

Wouldn't this be protected by a shunt signal? I've not put those on yet.

The exit from it would be protected by a disc signal in most cases, but at this location the train is signalled out of the yard into the section, outside station limits, so must be authorised by a proper starter signal.  Entering it needs to be from an outer home signal, all of which has an impact on your widdershins distant; a scenic break is needed for the top right corner.  Your platform home signals can serve to protect the movement from clockwise main line traffic.

 

I'm liking the new platform; this enables passenger trains to pass at the station, and solves the problem of road access to it.  Barrow crossing is good idea, for barrows, and while there were places where they were used by passengers (Treherbert for example) a footbridge or subway would be more likely.  A nice little cameo would be a lady with a pram waiting to be 'seen' across by a porter, though.

 

A first radius curve is going to restrict the locos and stock you can use very considerably.  Not many RTR locos are designed to run on them, and I'd check the manufacturer's recommended minumums before buying any, especially prairies.  The problem is not just wheelbases, but clearance and overhang restrictions to prevent buffer locking as well.  You might have problems with longer wheelbase NPCCS vans, such as CCTs or Fruit Ds, and any kit built stock.

[DCB]

4 hours ago, petejones said:

Or how about a platform either side with a barrow crossing for the passengers to cross from one side to the other (it's a quiet line), keep the goods sidings separate with access via the crossing?

 

 

Now you have a pair of platforms you no longer need half the signals. Almost unheard of to signal both platforms for bi directional running. Much more likely for one direction only so one arm off each bracket, two less starting signals.

Lots of RTR can't get round 1st radius, most of those that can get round 12" radius which is why my latest project has 12" radius curves.

I would definitely do away with the 1st radius curves. The goods yard sort of needs signalling but it's a bit of an unlikely scenario as it would usually be a trailing connection from the loop. Its such a long way from the signal box that it might need another signal box to operate it

[petejones]

Thanks chaps. I've replaced the 1st radius with 2nd and all fits OK.

 

How about two signal boxes? There are two on the Llangollen line at Glyndyfrdwy as the station is on a curve.

[petejones]

17 minutes ago, DavidCBroad said:

Much more likely for one direction only so one arm off each bracket, two less starting signals.

 

That will save a bit of money as well, thanks.

[petejones]

The latest plan. The footbridge looks like it's falling off the platform, but it's only one of two they have in AnyRail (both from Hornby - I will get the Ratio covered footbridge if I decided to go down this route).

 

[JDW]

I like the plan, it's developing well. I initially preferred the small one platform design, but as The Johnster said there was no access to the station by foot/road. I like the two platform idea with footbridge though, a footbridge always adds a bit of character as well as an extra dimension to a station.  Apologies if I've missed it but what's the grey square next to the track top right?

[petejones]

7 minutes ago, JDW said:

Apologies if I've missed it but what's the grey square next to the track top right?

 

Thanks for the feedback. That's just a hut - not sure it will go there as I hope to have a cutting around that bend.

[petejones]

I've added some more labels:

 

[petejones]

Managed to get the footbridge sorted out:

 

[PatB]

The trouble with footbridges on small layouts is that they can emphasise how compressed everything else is. There's not much that can be reduced in a footbridge to match everything else. Even station buildings are more easily squashed (see Airfix and Super quick for good examples) to keep things in proportion. For this reason I still rather like the idea of a foot crossing, even if it was rather unusual in reality. 

 

If you do go with the footbridge, make sure it's an appropriate height to be sited on the platforms. I'm not sure about other kits, but the old Airfix structure was designed to work from track level, becoming very tall when sitting on platforms and further dwarfing what was around it. It's easy to cut down but many people don't. 

[petejones]

Thanks Pat. I quite like the idea of the foot crossing too. I read somewhere that if a line was quiet, they wouldn't go to the trouble and expense of building a footbridge - I will try and find where I read it.

[PatB]

7 minutes ago, petejones said:

Thanks Pat. I quite like the idea of the foot crossing too. I read somewhere that if a line was quiet, they wouldn't go to the trouble and expense of building a footbridge - I will try and find where I read it.

 

As a real life example, Blue Anchor on the West Somerset Railway has no footbridge, in spite of the Minehead branch having a moderate level of traffic in its day. Presumably the level crossing immediately at the platform ends was considered an acceptable substitute. 

[petejones]

Another issue is cluttering up the already short platforms. I'm going to try and use the smallest station buildings I can as the platforms + ramps are only 72cm long. Adding a footbridge will only make this worse.

[37Oban]

Hi,

regarding footbridges, Goxhill, Thornton Abbey, Ulceby, Stallingborough, Healing and Great Coates on the line between Barton upon Humber and Grimsby don't have footbridges.  However, they all have a nearby level crossing and foot crossing.   Habrough is a special case because it has staggered platforms either side of a main road and used to have a footbridge to allow access to the up platform when the crossing was closed to road traffic but this removed some time ago.

 

Roja

[petejones]

I could always tell people that the footbridge has been removed for repairs

[The Johnster]

Given your restricted platform space, it might be an idea not to have the main station building on the platform at all and just have shelters; the main building can then be at ground level.  Again, Treherbert provides a prototype example, and there are plenty of others.

[petejones]

15 minutes ago, The Johnster said:

Given your restricted platform space, it might be an idea not to have the main station building on the platform at all and just have shelters; the main building can then be at ground level.

 

That's all I have purchased (shelters) as I thought a large station building would take up too much space.

[The Johnster]

You are obviously already thinking along the same lines as me.