Latest track plan for garage layout.

[Flying Pig]

3 minutes ago, Harlequin said:

@Flying Pig Do the modern layouts have a platform between the running lines as you've shown? Sorry to question it but I don't have any Quail books - I only have steam era track plans and they show platforms either side of the running lines with one or two "middle sidings" between up and down.

I realise things might have changed dramatically - just checking.

 

 

 

Yes - see the Wikipedia entry.  Apparently the layout dates from a 1950s rebuilding and it certainly has a period character, quite different from a steam era layout. Though it's not quite as bonkers as Swindon, where from vandalisation rebuilding about 1970 until 2004 down trains had to cross the up main to reach the platform road, which was a loop off the up line.  I used to play the Simsig version of that and always thought it would make a quirky model.  Spoiled now as they've put a platform in the sensible place on the down side.

[Clagsniffer]

Thanks for all the replies and words of encouragement, I really do appreciate it.

 

@Flying Pig thanks for taking the time do sketch out those schematics, some interesting ideas there. I might give Anyrail a night off tonight after last nights horror show, and go at it fresh tomorrow night. Hopefully by bed time tomorrow night I will have something to look at, and will post something on here for you all to cast your eyes over again.

 

Thanks again to all who have replied.

[Joseph_Pestell]

On 01/02/2020 at 15:02, TonyMay said:

 

 

Also, remember tunnelling is expensive and the GWR wouldn't've put the start of the station throat in the tunnel on the right; they'd've started the throat after the tunnel exit.  A road bridge would present less of a problem on this front.

 

Birmingham Snow Hill is the exception that proves this rule.

 

But I agree with your suggestion that a far more effective layout could be built in this space by only modelling one end of the station with a road bridge (and station building?) providing the scenic break at the right hand end. That would leave space for a more complex track layout at the left-hand side and wider curves in the visible part.

[Clagsniffer]

57 minutes ago, Joseph_Pestell said:

 

Birmingham Snow Hill is the exception that proves this rule.

 

But I agree with your suggestion that a far more effective layout could be built in this space by only modelling one end of the station with a road bridge (and station building?) providing the scenic break at the right hand end. That would leave space for a more complex track layout at the left-hand side and wider curves in the visible part.

Could you post a rough sketch of what you mean? I can’t visualise which section you would model.

 

Thanks.

[DCB]

North Road is very much a one off.  That through siding is pretty much a unique anachronism, most went pre 1970. 

It was very weird pre 1938 with only one track between two platforms  and a huge gap between platforms, but in 1938 redevelopment as a 7 platform station commenced.   Shortly after that the war started and then Plymouth's main GW Terminus Millbay was closed due to bomb damage to the goods depot.   The track layout was intended for easy engine changing, adding and detaching pilots etc. The tracks to the east through Mutley and Mutley Tunnel were a bottleneck, carrying southern services to Friary, Light engines to from Laira and locals to Tavistock  Auto trains to Marsh Mills as well as Main line services.  North Road was the only East West link in the Plymouth Area so both freight and passenger traffic.

The Present station has the southernmost platforms severed to provide separate bays for Cornwall and Devon Locals, so isn't exactly a great arrangement.  Its built on an awkward site sloping down into a valley where you could use a hill side. 

Its not bad as a 21sr Century station,  albeit very big, guessing 5th biggest on Western Region, but a bit boring if you only did one end.

Too big for re 1962, you couldn't handle the traffic!

 

 

 

 

 

[Clagsniffer]

Well I know I said I was going to have a night off from Anyrail tonight, but I just couldn't keep away! I've had a bash at designing one half of the plan. I've managed to include all the platforms and also the carriage sidings. I've made use of the annoying pillar by using it as the dead end of the bay platforms. I must admit i'm kinda liking the look of it dare I say? I know the track work on the right hand side may need a few tweaks, but this is 'off scene' so doesn't need to look pretty. Well here goes, here's the plan. Please take a look and feel free to comment. 

 

[Harlequin]

I had a go at the east of FlyingPig's simplified schematic:

Used a double slip to help compress it a bit.

Agh! I can already see an improvement. Too late now, I need sleep.

[Flying Pig]

35 minutes ago, Clagsniffer said:

Well I know I said I was going to have a night off from Anyrail tonight, but I just couldn't keep away! I've had a bash at designing one half of the plan. I've managed to include all the platforms and also the carriage sidings. I've made use of the annoying pillar by using it as the dead end of the bay platforms. I must admit i'm kinda liking the look of it dare I say? I know the track work on the right hand side may need a few tweaks, but this is 'off scene' so doesn't need to look pretty. Well here goes, here's the plan. Please take a look and feel free to comment. 

 

Can I suggest you have a play with the "add parallel track" option in Anyrail (right click on a piece of flexi, I think) and redraw your plan with the spacing at the Streamline value of 2", which should be ok for radii down to about 24" (you may need wider spacing for tighter curves as in the bottom corners)?  As drawn at the moment, the spacing is very variable and looks too tight in some places and wider than necessary in others.

 

As regards the plan itself, there's still a bit too much platform showing for my taste. If you reduce it a bit the lines at the left won't be pushed up against the wall so much.

 

More radically, do you need all the pointwork at the offscene end of the station?  The station throat here brings the lines together only for them to split almost immediately at the fiddle yard pointwork. If some or all of the loops could be continued directly into the fiddle yard, two whole throats could be largely eliminated, saving a lot of room.  

[Clagsniffer]

22 minutes ago, Flying Pig said:

 

Can I suggest you have a play with the "add parallel track" option in Anyrail (right click on a piece of flexi, I think) and redraw your plan with the spacing at the Streamline value of 2", which should be ok for radii down to about 24" (you may need wider spacing for tighter curves as in the bottom corners)?  As drawn at the moment, the spacing is very variable and looks too tight in some places and wider than necessary in others.

 

As regards the plan itself, there's still a bit too much platform showing for my taste. If you reduce it a bit the lines at the left won't be pushed up against the wall so much.

 

More radically, do you need all the pointwork at the offscene end of the station?  The station throat here brings the lines together only for them to split almost immediately at the fiddle yard pointwork. If some or all of the loops could be continued directly into the fiddle yard, two whole throats could be largely eliminated, saving a lot of room.  

Hi Flying Pig, I’ll address your points;

 

Re: track spacing - I agree the spacing is all over the place, when I started drawing the plan it was just supposed to be a rough idea and it just evolved. I will go back to it tomorrow and sort it properly.

 

Re: platform size - you’re probably right about the amount of platform on show. As I said though, it was just a rough initial plan, once I had “laid” the track I just filled in the areas to show a representation of where they would be, I can easily change that. The lines against the wall are also “off scene” so I’m not too worried about them being near the wall.

 

Re: off scene point work - it’s a brilliant idea to continue the loops round to the fiddle yard, I will look into that when I revisit the plan tomorrow night.

 

Thanks again for you’re input and advice I really do appreciate it. I know I must seem a bit of a numpty with all these daft plans.

[Joseph_Pestell]

7 hours ago, Clagsniffer said:

Well I know I said I was going to have a night off from Anyrail tonight, but I just couldn't keep away! I've had a bash at designing one half of the plan. I've managed to include all the platforms and also the carriage sidings. I've made use of the annoying pillar by using it as the dead end of the bay platforms. I must admit i'm kinda liking the look of it dare I say? I know the track work on the right hand side may need a few tweaks, but this is 'off scene' so doesn't need to look pretty. Well here goes, here's the plan. Please take a look and feel free to comment. 

 

 

You have clearly got the idea of only one end of the station being modelled. So I don't need to do drawing for you.

 

But I would probably go for the scenic break (roadbridge) being part way along the platforms. So less platform visible and more space for the pointwork. 

[Clagsniffer]

38 minutes ago, Joseph_Pestell said:

 

You have clearly got the idea of only one end of the station being modelled. So I don't need to do drawing for you.

 

But I would probably go for the scenic break (roadbridge) being part way along the platforms. So less platform visible and more space for the pointwork. 

I’ve only done a design for the east end as there is more interesting track work at that end. Are you suggesting that the west end would make a better layout? The section in the attached picture.

 

 

[Joseph_Pestell]

Just now, Clagsniffer said:

I’ve only done a design for the east end as there is more interesting track work at that end. Are you suggesting that the west end would make a better layout? The section in the attached picture.

 

 

 

No, I was not referencing North Road as such, just east and west on your plan (or left and right as I should have written).

 

Of course, no road bridge over North Road as it is on an embankment. But the building shown on that aerial photo is (or rather was) a mail sorting centre. That could have, like some other stations, have had a bridge over the tracks to transport mail bags.

 

PS: I like your idea for getting round the brick pillar. Will you model it (clad it) as the rather plain office block at North Road?

[Harlequin]

I see three problems with hiding one end of the station and connecting platform lines to the fiddle yard:

1. Some crucial operations and movements take place off scene.
2. By not building the offscene pointwork as it is in real life (or even as it would be in an imaginary station) you can't perform operations as they would be performed.
3. If the splayed out platform lines connect to the fiddle yard with mininal pointwork then the fiddle yard becomes part of the station and FY roads can't be used as general storage. Your FY is greatly reduced, maybe even lost completely.

With your 16ft space, some careful compression and creative use of the diagonals and the corners I think you ought to be able to fit a whole station in your scenic area. 

 

P.S. I think it's better to model a station so that you light it and view it from the sunny side if at all possible.

 

[Clagsniffer]

8 hours ago, Harlequin said:

I had a go at the east of FlyingPig's simplified schematic:

Used a double slip to help compress it a bit.

Agh! I can already see an improvement. Too late now, I need sleep.

Out of interest, what track work are you using in this diagram?

[TonyMay]

11 hours ago, Clagsniffer said:

om Anyrail tonight, but I just couldn't keep away! I've had a bash at designing one half of the plan. I've managed to include all the platforms and also the carriage sidings. I've made use of the annoying pillar by using it as the dead end of the bay platforms. I must admit i'm kinda liking the look of it dare I say? I know the track work on the right hand side may need a few tweaks, but this is 'off scene' so doesn't need to look prett

 

11 hours ago, Clagsniffer said:

Well I know I said I was going to have a night off from Anyrail tonight, but I just couldn't keep away! I've had a bash at designing one half of the plan. I've managed to include all the platforms and also the carriage sidings. I've made use of the annoying pillar by using it as the dead end of the bay platforms. I must admit i'm kinda liking the look of it dare I say? I know the track work on the right hand side may need a few tweaks, but this is 'off scene' so doesn't need to look pretty. Well here goes, here's the plan. Please take a look and feel free to comment. 

 

 

On the left hand side, roughly between where the text says "headshunt" there is a facing crossover - this really should be a trailing crossover.

[Harlequin]

7 hours ago, Clagsniffer said:

Out of interest, what track work are you using in this diagram?

 

Update: I got the Eastern approach to curve more (East is on the right in my version!):

 

It's curving the other way than the real North Road - but it's only "inspired by" it, right? And we have to lake liberties to fit our layout into reasonable spaces!

 

I managed to get some curve on the platform ends as well. I added a headshunt to FlyingPig's schematic platform 7. Haven't hooked up the bay(s) yet.

 

The parts are all Peco OO/HO Streamline with whatever rail profile and frog type you fancy. E..g. "ML" is Medium Left. "CL" is "Curved Left", etc.

 

[Clagsniffer]

2 hours ago, Harlequin said:

 

Update: I got the Eastern approach to curve more (East is on the right in my version!):

 

It's curving the other way than the real North Road - but it's only "inspired by" it, right? And we have to lake liberties to fit our layout into reasonable spaces!

 

I managed to get some curve on the platform ends as well. I added a headshunt to FlyingPig's schematic platform 7. Haven't hooked up the bay(s) yet.

 

The parts are all Peco OO/HO Streamline with whatever rail profile and frog type you fancy. E..g. "ML" is Medium Left. "CL" is "Curved Left", etc.

 

 

This looks brill. Thanks for taking the time to draw it up and post it. Can I ask why you curved it the other way? Was there a reason in particular?

 

When I finally get round to laying track ill be using code 75, electrofrog points.

 

I'm feeling a tad overwhelmed by it all at the minute, been thinking about it all day 

[DCB]

Most of the problems seem to stem from leaving out the outermost crossovers.   Hard to spot on google so I marked them.  Obviously this means shunting from one platform to another meaning a very long trip along the main line but how often does this actually happen?   Much more important to ensure all trains can enter all  platforms from either up or down lines without reversal.

[Harlequin]

2 hours ago, Clagsniffer said:

This looks brill. Thanks for taking the time to draw it up and post it. Can I ask why you curved it the other way? Was there a reason in particular?

 

Thanks!

 

There's no strong reason to lay the station out that way - just lots of small ones that make it feel right to me: It puts East on the right, you view the station from the South, sunnier side, the passenger entrance faces you, it's easier to fit the more complex pointwork on the right where you don't have to worry about the lifiting section.

 

The pointwork at the West end was much easier to lay out:

 

This is what the whole thing looks like:

 

Nothing is fixed in stone and some bits need more work. I haven't included the carriage sidings yet or the spur off the East bay that's shown on FlyingPig's drawing. I think it used to feed the parcels depot but I'm not sure what it should do now.

 

Note that there are both facing and trailing crossovers at both ends. The West facing crossover is in the non-scenic area, on the lifting section.

 

Minimum radius (the smaller red circles): 610mm

 

Edited February 6, 2020 by Harlequin

[Clagsniffer]

32 minutes ago, Harlequin said:

Thanks!

 

There's no strong reason to lay the station out that way - just lots of small ones that make it feel right to me: It puts East on the right, you view the station from the South, sunnier side, the passenger entrance faces you, it's easier to fit the more complex pointwork on the right where you don't have to worry about the lifiting section.

 

The pointwork at the West end was much easier to lay out:

 

This is what the whole thing looks like:

 

Nothing is fixed in stone and some bits need more work. I haven't included the carriage sidings yet or the spur off the East bay that's shown on FlyingPig's drawing. I think it used to feed the parcels depot but I'm not sure what it should do now.

 

Note that there are both facing and trailing crossovers at both ends. The West facing crossover is in the non-scenic area, on the lifting section.

 

Minimum radius (the smaller red circles): 610mm

 

That looks superb, you really do have a talent for layout design, looks very professional! Certainly better than some of my half baked ideas .

 

Have you any thoughts as to where the carriage sidings could possibly fit in? I would love to be able to fit them in to offer a little bit of shunting and to stable RES trains like I've seen on the internet. I've got some PCV's, super BG's and GUV's for this very purpose.

 

I know I keep saying this, but I do appreciate the help.

[Harlequin]

Update:

• Carriage/Parking sidings as per Flying Pig. They are usably ~3ft long.
• Longer West Bay platform.
• Extended headshunts - more like North Road.

I hope you like it! 

[Flying Pig]

4 hours ago, Harlequin said:

Extended headshunts - more like North Road.

 

What purpose does the up side headshunt serve?  I guess on the real thing it was connected with shunting the sidings, but as they are at the other end of the platform on the layout plan it doesn't seem to be needed.

 

The down side headshunt actually looks considerably shorter than drawn here, both on recent aerial views and as represented in the Quail book (which I realise isn't to scale).  However, it is perhaps more usable on the model.  I would add in a siding next to the east bay to allow sone shunting of parcels stock here, making use of the independent route to the headshunt.  In real life, the Quail diagram shows a tamper siding here in 1989, presumably a former loading, dock as well as the second bay platform.

 

Overall I like this plan very much, but I think it needs to be drawn fully, including the fiddle yard pointwork with some consideration of the intended train lengths.

[Harlequin]

3 hours ago, Flying Pig said:

 

What purpose does the up side headshunt serve?  I guess on the real thing it was connected with shunting the sidings, but as they are at the other end of the platform on the layout plan it doesn't seem to be needed.

Yes, it's not strictly needed unless the carriage sidings are in their prototype position. It is possible to have platform8 and the sidings in the protoypical position but the say "less-is-more" and on balance I prefer the plan a shown because it leaves space for some scenics behind the station. However the advantages of the long Up headshunt are that: it looks good, it is characteristic of North Road and it should add a bit of play value operational interest. (Especially if it was in fact a loop that connected to the Up line further on, as I think the prototype does. This all depends on what Claggy thinks, of course!

 

Quote

 

The down side headshunt actually looks considerably shorter than drawn here, both on recent aerial views and as represented in the Quail book (which I realise isn't to scale).  However, it is perhaps more usable on the model.  I would add in a siding next to the east bay to allow sone shunting of parcels stock here, making use of the independent route to the headshunt.  In real life, the Quail diagram shows a tamper siding here in 1989, presumably a former loading, dock as well as the second bay platform.

The Down headshunt is probably too long. I think it should stop before the bridge, which should still be a useful length. I will add the second bay.

 

Quote

 

Overall I like this plan very much, but I think it needs to be drawn fully, including the fiddle yard pointwork with some consideration of the intended train lengths.

Agreed. Platform lengths are on the order of 6ft. Hopefully they are long enough, @Clagsniffer? So fiddle yard roads need to be of a similar length plus a bit.

 

Edited February 7, 2020 by Harlequin

[Clagsniffer]

First of all, a massive thank you to @Harlequin for drawing that up, looks brilliant and far better than anything I could have imagined. Love it.

 

With regards to @Flying Pig comment regarding the up headshunt, I think I would use it for stabling stock? Didn’t coaches get added and removed from trains to and from Penzance? I’m sure I can use it.

[royaloak]

On 05/02/2020 at 14:46, Flying Pig said:

 

 

Yes - see the Wikipedia entry.  Apparently the layout dates from a 1950s rebuilding and it certainly has a period character, quite different from a steam era layout. Though it's not quite as bonkers as Swindon, where from vandalisation rebuilding about 1970 until 2004 down trains had to cross the up main to reach the platform road, which was a loop off the up line.  I used to play the Simsig version of that and always thought it would make a quirky model.  Spoiled now as they've put a platform in the sensible place on the down side.

Which is actually on top of the former down relief line.