New layout design help & input please

[Jamie24]

Unsure if this is in the right place or not, but I am planning on my first proper layout having seen so many good layouts on here which inspired me to create my own. 
 

I am as yet unsure weather it will be O or OO gauge, however am heavily leaning towards O gauge. Trying to base it on a GWR terminus style end to end layout that will comprise of three main sections. The first two sections scenic and the third will be a hidden fiddle yard. 
 

So that leads me to the actual design of the track plan.. I have come up with a rough first design (with two slightly different engine shed locations) Can I please get any input (good or bad) with anything that I may have missed or not included or done incorrectly? Or possible suggestions of what to change or improve? 
 

The design below is drawn in O gauge, each board size is 9’ x 2.5’ (ish) so the scenic section will be 18’ long in total. 
 

Any help or constructive criticism very welcome, 

 

thanks, J

[Bishops road]

I would perhaps extend the passing loop further onto the right hand board, perhaps having it begin before the point that branches of towards the goods yard, not sure of the how prototypical that would be but it would allow for longer trains to be used 

 

best of luck with whatever you decide to do

Edited April 4, 2020 by Bishops road
spelling

[Dungrange]

Your loop should be long enough to allow you to run round the train.  As you've drawn it (the length where the two lines are parallel), it doesn't look as though you'll be able to run round anything longer than about two coaches - you probably have about four foot maximum between your fouling points.  Is that the longest train you plan to accommodate?

 

Catch points, or more correctly trap points, are only required where you need to stop a movement that would infringe a passenger line.  If the blue shaded lines are non-passenger lines, then there is no need to trap the Engine shed siding.  The 'catch points'  however should be far enough back that they would actually derail a vehicle before it gets to the passenger line: they look a bit close to the running line.

 

 

 

[Jamie24]

I am planning on having running trains of no longer than 3 coaches. Mainly 2 coach long trains with pannier tank locos and auto coaches with 14xx locos. A few small goods wagon trains also to make use of the sidings and goods shed. I tried to plan it so that with a 3 coach train in the station (max length of train used) there would be enough room for a small goods train or single auto train to hold in the loop.. I have tried to keep little on the second board due to the landscaping I plan to have.. but I could possibly extend it..

As for the catch/ trap points, I have just guessed where they should be placed from looking at others layouts.. 

Edited April 4, 2020 by Jamie24
Added content

[lezz01]

I would go with a longer loop as well.

Regards Lez.

[Joseph_Pestell]

Definitely, the longer loop. Ashburton, for instance, had a loop long enough for six coaches even though the platform could only take three.

 

Since the OP knows that this will be a GW BLT, why not look at real GW branch termini for inspiration, although being careful to avoid those that can only be shunted by a horse (Ashburton again). Moretonhampstead is a classic for good reason.

[Dungrange]

Based on the track plan, I'd have thought that the line may have been operated as 'one engine in steam', but I accept that you could have two trains in the station at the same time.  However, since there is only one platform, I wouldn't have thought that you'd ever have had an autotrain in the loop at the same time as you have a two or three coach passenger train sitting in the platform.  It would be one or the other on the layout at any point in time with all passenger trains occupying the platform road when 'on scene'.

 

The justification for having two trains on the layout at the same time would be that there is a long single track line and your departing passenger train has to wait for the inbound goods train to arrive before it can depart.  You'd therefore have a passenger train in the platform and your goods train would arrive in the loop and siding beyond the loco release crossover.  I'd be tempted to move your engine shed to roughly where your signal box is shown, so that once your passenger train has departed, you can draw a loco from the shed to the loop to then shunt your goods train, with the inbound goods loco moving to the shed to be prepared for its return trip.

 

Again, you may want your next passenger train to arrive before the goods train can depart (because of the long single line section), but it would probably be marshalled in the loop ready to depart before the passenger train arrives.  The goods would then depart before the passenger locomotive is able to run round.

 

Ultimately, the purpose of the loop is to allow a locomotive to run round your three coach train whilst it is sitting at the platform and therefore the coaches need to fit between the two crossovers.  You need to check that you have the space to make that run-round move, as it looks rather 'tight'.  Many loops would be long enough to accommodate a much longer train than was used. 

 

If you were to move the engine shed to roughly where the signal box is located, you wouldn't need any trap points on the track-work below the mainline as the trapping would be performed by regular points.  You would still need the trap point for the coal siding/ goods shed, although it would ideally be further from the passenger running line to allow it to derail a vehicle clear of the running line.

[Jamie24]

Thanks for your input, I had looked at Moretonhampstead and some other similar real life stations, loosely basing it on them, but wanted to create my own (as yet unnamed). 
 

So I have tweaked the design a bit, moved a few things around.. should the point to the engine shed have been moved to the right in the middle of the loop or left at the start of the station level with the SM house where it originally was? 
 

 

[Joseph_Pestell]

That is certainly looking better with the longer run-round loop. I think that I would move the turnout to the loco shed onto the right hand board.

 

A cattle dock on the siding opposite the stationmaster's house will add to shunting interest. I would be tempted to move the station building to the left to get a longer good siding.

 

Operationally, probably OK to have a goods train ready to depart from the loop for when a passenger train arrives. Not so likely, but possible with additional signalling, is a passenger train waiting to depart before arrival of the goods.

 

If you slant the whole layout by about 4 degrees, it will not only look better but you should be able to gain a couple of inches to lengthen the coal/mileage siding round the back of the goods shed.

[Dungrange]

36 minutes ago, Jamie24 said:

should the point to the engine shed have been moved to the right in the middle of the loop or left at the start of the station level with the SM house where it originally was? 

 

I think the answer depends on how you intend to operate the layout, but I'd move the point that accesses the engine shed to the right.  The reason is that assuming the platform is occupied by a passenger train, an inbound goods train is likely to enter from the right, run through the loop and stop just short of the buffers.  This goods train is likely to comprise a locomotive, half a dozen wagons and a brake van.  Ideally there would be enough space between the brake van and the point accessing the engine shed for a locomotive to come off shed to do the shunting.  That therefore means that the distance between your buffer stop and the access to the engine shed should be long enough to accommodate two locomotives, one brake van and however many wagons you intend to include in your goods train. 

[Jamie24]

Any better? 

[Joseph_Pestell]

Yes, much better. I think that you have just about created enough space to take the coal/mileage siding another few feet to the left.

[Jamie24]

I was thinking that taking it any further to the left would encroach on the access / vehicle manoeuvring for the goods shed. Not on the plan is (what i was intending to put on, but have not yet got around to) would be a fence or stone wall separating the station forecourt / carpark area from the goods area.
Or should it possibly match the length of the goods shed siding but be concreted so that vehicles can drive over the track (hard standing area)? 

[Nick Holliday]

1 hour ago, Jamie24 said:

Any better? 

 

1 hour ago, Joseph_Pestell said:

Yes, much better. I think that you have just about created enough space to take the coal/mileage siding another few feet to the left.

Much better, the addition of the cattle dock and the movement of the engine shed really improves it, but don't forget to reinstate the trap points. As Joseph says, it would really improve things if the mileage siding were longer, since at the moment it looks as if can only hold a couple of wagons, and on the real thing there was usually ample provision of siding space. I'd get rid of the coal bins you've shown, as they were extremely rare on GW branchlines, and that gives more room for general merchandise traffic. A slight problem is that the GWR had a penchant for large goods sheds which can be over-powering on a smaller layout, but I am not aware of any smaller alternatives.

Right at the start you say the boards are going to be 9' x 2' 6", which is a massive size if you intend it to be at all portable. Unless it is a permanent set up, in which case why two boards, you may have to consider breaking it down further, so that each board could be carried by a couple of people, and this may have an impact on where you chose to place buildings and pointwork.

[Joseph_Pestell]

Thanks for pointing out that the boards have not been built yet. I had missed that.

 

Yes a 9' length has nothing to commend it. Rare to find sheet materials that long.

 

But also the 2'6" is not fixed. 2'8" would make the difference to that goods yard and is also convenient to cut from sheet materials (one third of 8'). Not sure what is planned for the fiddleyard, but 6 boards of 4' x 2'8" could work with some adjustment to location of turnouts.

[Jamie24]

Yes, nothing has yet been built. Purely at the planning stage at the moment... I can sort the baseboard size out at a later date to suit point location and baseboard join positions etc. This is purely track plan based at the moment. That sizing was a start point to work with and obviously if I decide to choose to model in OO then it will be smaller in size. 

Have modified it a little further.. Moving the coal location, adding a water tower and an ash pit will be in front of the engine shed. From my research there seems to be many small single loco sheds from around this area I am modelling in the south west?

 

I moved the signal box to the other side of the main line so it can be cut into the side of the hill that will be towards the rear of that board. 
 

As for the fiddle yard I will think about that at a later date once the main track plan is completed

 

J

 

Edited April 5, 2020 by Jamie24
Added content

[The Johnster]

Another vote for extending the mileage/coal siding, to beyond the goods shed.  I take your point in respect to road vehicles manoeuvring to back on to the goods shed, though. Traditionally, 18’, the turning circle of a horse drawn vehicle (and a Scammell 3 wheeler with trailer), was left between goods yard roads for this; nearly 3” in 4mm and 5” in 7mm, so you can probably get away with it.  If you can’t, slew the running lines more parallel to the baseboard front and closer to it, and curve it away from the baseboard front just to the right of the baseboard join so that you’ve room for the loco shed, and reverse the curve around it.  I believe this will improve the look and ‘flow’ of the layout as well.  
 

Steam era stations didn’t have car parks; these came after 1963 when the goods yards closed, the forecourt sufficing.  There’d be a fence and lockable gates to the goods yard, and if this starts at the forecourt station entrance and is angle to the left a bit the mileage road can extend even further to the left. 

[Jamie24]

33 minutes ago, The Johnster said:

Another vote for extending the mileage/coal siding, to beyond the goods shed.  I take your point in respect to road vehicles manoeuvring to back on to the goods shed, though. Traditionally, 18’, the turning circle of a horse drawn vehicle (and a Scammell 3 wheeler with trailer), was left between goods yard roads for this; nearly 3” in 4mm and 5” in 7mm, so you can probably get away with it.  If you can’t, slew the running lines more parallel to the baseboard front and closer to it, and curve it away from the baseboard front just to the right of the baseboard join so that you’ve room for the loco shed, and reverse the curve around it.  I believe this will improve the look and ‘flow’ of the layout as well.  
 

Steam era stations didn’t have car parks; these came after 1963 when the goods yards closed, the forecourt sufficing.  There’d be a fence and lockable gates to the goods yard, and if this starts at the forecourt station entrance and is angle to the left a bit the mileage road can extend even further to the left. 

Thanks for the input, I think I understand, any chance of drawing over the plan so i can visualise it a bit better?

 

Of course yes, no car park, just used that to describe the area out front of the station. Although I was planning on running GWR locos and also BR early crest to cover the period of late 40’s-early 50’s
 

thanks, J

Edited April 5, 2020 by Jamie24

[The Johnster]

Don't worry about car parks, Jamie; they replaced goods yards wholesale after the Beeching Cuts, as part of the cutting edge of modernity; park and ride, and also to hold on to the land for BR who knew it would be an accruing value asset should they want to sell it off to developers later.  Land speculation was an important and profitable part of BR's business in the 60s and 70s.  Beeching promoted freight as the block and intermodal trains we now have, and wanted to cut the 'common carrier' side of the business.  He didn't quite succeed immediately, but centralised on to major goods depots which became the core of the NCL business.  But local goods depots of this sort were thriving until the very late 50s and most were still in business, though losing traffic to the roads, by Beeching's time, 1963.

 

Beeching was unadulterated beancounter savagery red in tooth and claw, but most of the branches and local yards would probably have gone out of use over the next decade as road transport took on their role and the domestic coal market collapsed in the face of oil and gas fired central heating in a world where the modern, cool, thing to do was to block your fireplace up like Barry Bucknall showed you with a bit of painted hardboard.  The little wagonload freight we still had in the 70s was from NCL or small private sidings shunted out by trip workings; the point to point block was the future!

 

I'll draw out a rough idea of what I envisage the layout as later or tomoz; it's dinner time and I'm having an operating session later; layout's looked like the aftermath of a visit from the Luftwaffe all week as I've been kit building!

[Harlequin]

Hi Jamie,

What will you do with the space in the top left corner? It’s hidden by the station buildings and taking up valuable baseboard area while not doing much...

You need to think about the fiddle yard at the same time as the scenic part of the layout because each one will affect the other.

It’s nice to see trains articulate a bit as they enter and leave the scene and dead straight track doesn’t help with that.

Everyone is always crying out for space so if you have a choice of scales maybe choose the smaller scale to get more space, effectively, unless you have a really strong reason to use the larger scale.

 

[Happy Hippo]

All this planning is wonderful but the questions that need asking are:

 

What is the overall space you have which includes storage and are there any restrictions to access?.

 

Can you get all around, or are the boards going to be hard against a wall?

 

Where are the off scene trains going to be stored, and how do you intend to store them?

 

It is no good having a diagonal layout if the exit is close to a wall and you want to use a traverser.

 

A fan of points will eat up space like there is no tomorrow.

 

It helps that you've already specified your maximum length of train.  A pannier and a B set will take up the best part of 4 ft, it's an extra 18" per coach so the next passenger train is going to be 5' 6". Allow for 6 ft if you are using a 45xx or a 41xx tank locos.

 

Once you've sorted out these issues you can then go back to your planning, knowing that 'the rest of the world' is going to work well.

 

 

[Nick Holliday]

20 hours ago, Harlequin said:

Hi Jamie,

What will you do with the space in the top left corner? It’s hidden by the station buildings and taking up valuable baseboard area while not doing much...

 

I've just come across a photo of Bovey station, in Great Western Infrastructure, which has a similar layout, and the mileage siding extends past the shed right up to the end of the loop, with the siding full of wagons, which had plenty of room for unloading, with just a fairly narrow roadway leading to the buildings.

[saxokid]

Like the plans of this Jamie24..