WR 1960s planned layout - feedback gratefully received

[Blinddog]

Hi all

 

Long-time lurker; first post

 

Mine is a familiar tale – built a layout with my dad (OK mainly watched as he built it) many moons ago. Got side-tracked by girls, rugby, beer, family and career (not necessarily in that order) until I finally reopened the boxes that had been stored for decades and some of the old innocent delight returned.

 

Then close to 2 years of planning (or procrastination – take your pick) and here I am finally with something approaching a plan.

 

I have a decent sized room, with a near U shape available for permanent railway use (3.2m on the longest side, 3.58m wide and 2.06m long on the short side). On the short side I can temporarily locate cassettes that extend beyond the 2.06m to cover an outward opening external door to a balcony.

 

Based in part on a couple of plans in Peco’s “Track plans for layouts to suit all locations” and in part on an RMweb thread (“L shaped problem – track plan help”), the attached is what I’ve come up with:

 

OO gauge, code 100 streamline

Cassette fiddle yard (they’ll go in the blue boxed section on the short side)

Western region steam / diesel crossover (I grew in the west country before migrating down under 14 years ago)

Entirely fictional medium sized town at the end of a secondary mainline

4 coaches + tender locos fit easily on the mainline platforms

DCC operated – NCE powercab

I have a Megapoints controller for the points and signals which will eventually be linked to DCC, but likely separate at the start

The descent of the branchline is planned to be a smooth 2% across the top end only

 

I intend it to be a learning layout, as there is a lot to learn both about building a model railway and also about how the real railways looked and operated in that era, railway infrastructure, signalling and the list goes on.

 

I don’t need it to be prototypical but hoping someone can point out any glaring errors I can fix before I start building it (after I’ve learnt to solder), or indeed any feedback / comments at all.

 

Thanks

 

Phil

[Aire Head]

It’s looks pretty good for a start!

 

Donyou have any Patrick preference one what you want to do and to run?

 

What interests you the most is it movement, shunting, etc

[Michael Hodgson]

I'm unclear about your cassettes.  I assume the main line is to be run as double track route to/from the cassette.

 

So will your cassettes will be double track, capable of holding two trains?  If the plan is to place a train on both tracks of the cassette, one will run right line to the terminus, run round and run back to the other line once that is empty.  Which means you have to run the second train to the station to make room for it, but that has to run wrong line - unless you put a crossover on the fixed bit of the layout to transfer it to the right line.

 

Or will it be a single track cassette, that you move between up and down lines according to which movement you are doing?  If so, you can't use it as a proper double line with trains running in opposite directions at the same time. 

 

Or perhaps the cassettes could be single track, but turned into a sector plate by supporting them on a pivot at the other side of the doorway.

 

Your branch train will be very short, looks like you can only run round one coach.  Or if you only use DMUs on that, I don't see a need to the run-round line.  No goods facilities there.

[LNER4479]

A couple of things that immediately come to mind.

 

In terms of 'how the railway would have done it', the real railway would have had additional pointwork for 'protection' between sidings and lines signalled for passenger use. The most obvious example on your plan would be the connection between the turntable road and your left hand platform (which you've labelled as 'mainline platform'). In reality, there would be some sort of protection spur or depot headshunt so that if - say - you wanted to move a loco between the turntable road and the stabling siding alongside it, you wouldn't run into the platform road and back out again. That could be done by substituting the point you have there with a double slip (if you're brave enough!)

 

The other thing is that, as drawn, no inbound train can arrive into the left hand platform (assuming you're planning to run conventional left hand side of a double track). You might of course have done that deliberately of course, preferring to shunt the coaches across from another platform upon arrival. Otherwise a facing crossover for inbound trains would be required.

 

Hope that helps (a bit?)

[The Stationmaster]

The loco shed siding really only needs a trap point - far more typical of GWR branchline sheds in that sort of location - e.g Bodmin, Helston (although neither had turntables).

 

I agree with 'LNER 4479' regarding lack of arrival facility at one of the 'mainline' platforms although it isn't necessarily unusual in older small Western terminus layouts although most were later altered to improve flexibility (but Falmouth retained separate arrival and departure platforms until it was rationalised down to one platform and Neyland retained such an arrangement until closure),

 

I'd query the provision of a parcels platform - very unusual for a smaller (G)WR terminus.  th eother feature is that the goods yard looks very small with only two sidings - and it too isn't trapped from a passenger line.  I would have expected the branch to be kept separate from the main arrival line although lack of spac e might be a problem.  But as the layout stands only one train can approach the station at a time which in the real world would distinctly hamper operations.  This will be exacerbated by the need to shunt coaching stock from the arrival platform to the departure platform. which will prevent any train approaching on either main or branch and block all departures..

[ITG]

Your intro made me smile….. your spectator role with your dad’s endeavours and your distractions sound so similar to mine! I too resumed after a gap of many years, although I had no historical stock to return to. Your layout and space also bear some resemblance to what I currently have, except I could not resist continuing my double track around the whole room to give continuous running. I find it therapeutically entertaining to have a couple of trains circling, whilst either shunting or tinkering. Have you thought about that aspect?

 

Something I didn’t incorporate but wish I had was the facility for a branch train (DMU maybe) to shuttle back and forth automatically between stations. I didn’t build in the option of that happening without - as so in your plan - having to cut on to the mainline, which compromises the automatic nature of it, if there are arriving trains on the left running main line (as per your plan)

 

My fiddle yard is loops on the continuous circuits, albeit more of a open view storage yard where I hold trains. I do have a reverse loop to turn complete trains, which potentially you may have space to tightly loop it round under the branch station, assuming gradients work.

 

Have you thought how you wish to assemble/shunt goods trains in your yard? To avoid fouling the main line, you’d have to draw back into the industrial sidings, and if trains contained stock from (or for) there as well, there’s no obvious place to run round (unless you use passenger roads).

 

I must add these are just observations drawn from comparing what I have or wish I had. As has been said, your plan is pretty much on ‘track’! And I cannot claim to be a prototypical modeller, just like what I see as a balance between enjoyment and reality.

[The Johnster]

I’d want to put a facing crossover to access all platforms for incoming trains (I’m calling these ‘down’ as Paddington is at the other end of this line).  If those grid squares are 3” and grey represents the baseboards, the up and down mains at the top are 33” from the edge of the baseboard and will be a big stretch to reach if they are backed to a wall; 24” is a better ‘working’ dimension, and the same goes for the loco yard and turntable area.  Of course, ignore this comment if you plan to bring the baseboard edges in a bit. 
 

I agree with the comments about trap points to protect the running lines, and you might want to consider a third running line at the station throat to enable a train to run on the branch without affecting the down main.  Are you planning to have the branch terminus at a higher level than the main lines?  If so this will make it harder to reach the main lines, particularly as they are hidden behind the dotted line which I think is your backscene and I’d suggest having the branch at the same or a lower level than the mains. 

 

 

Edited June 23, 2021 by The Johnster

[Blinddog]

 

Thanks for the replies - they all help

 

LNER4479 & Stationmaster, do these amendments address the missing trap points or have I missed the point entirely? A year ago I wouldn't have bothered, but I think I'm starting to understand why trying to get closer to the real thing adds to the enjoyment

 

I'll have to play around in anyrail to figure out how expand the goods facilities - might take me a while as edits seem to take me forever (something else to learn). And the parcels platform can just become the branch platform which hopefully would be more (G)WR?

 

No idea yet how to solve the issue that no inbound train can arrive into the left hand platform - thanks for pointing it out through as I'd completely missed it. I'll need to research some more

 

Aire Head: I can't say fro sure what my particular interest is, as I'm just returning to the hobby. A year or so ago I just wanted to run trains; after lurking here for a while I'm a lot more interested in trying to build and operate something that at least resembles the real thing and has a realistic pattern of workings albeit compressed in time

 

Michael H: there will be separate cassettes for each main line rather than the single cassette shown - its just my lazy drawing. The plan is that they'll be modular so that nothing is too big to handle and turn. They are a way down the track though as I plan on building the station area first and will have a temporary fiddle yard along the top wall for a while. The branch is just intended to shuttle a small train backwards and forwards. There's no goods facilities as such as I can't work out where to insert points

 

 

[Blinddog]

21 hours ago, ITG said:

Your intro made me smile….. your spectator role with your dad’s endeavours and your distractions sound so similar to mine! I too resumed after a gap of many years, although I had no historical stock to return to. Your layout and space also bear some resemblance to what I currently have, except I could not resist continuing my double track around the whole room to give continuous running. I find it therapeutically entertaining to have a couple of trains circling, whilst either shunting or tinkering. Have you thought about that aspect?

 

Something I didn’t incorporate but wish I had was the facility for a branch train (DMU maybe) to shuttle back and forth automatically between stations. I didn’t build in the option of that happening without - as so in your plan - having to cut on to the mainline, which compromises the automatic nature of it, if there are arriving trains on the left running main line (as per your plan)

 

My fiddle yard is loops on the continuous circuits, albeit more of a open view storage yard where I hold trains. I do have a reverse loop to turn complete trains, which potentially you may have space to tightly loop it round under the branch station, assuming gradients work.

 

Have you thought how you wish to assemble/shunt goods trains in your yard? To avoid fouling the main line, you’d have to draw back into the industrial sidings, and if trains contained stock from (or for) there as well, there’s no obvious place to run round (unless you use passenger roads).

 

I must add these are just observations drawn from comparing what I have or wish I had. As has been said, your plan is pretty much on ‘track’! And I cannot claim to be a prototypical modeller, just like what I see as a balance between enjoyment and reality.

ITG - I did consider continuous running. I loved following Wencombe (), and many other continuous circuits. I only decided on a U shape as the room needs to function as my home office 5 days a week and that looks set to continue. Maybe I need to revisit continuous running as having a train trundling round as I work is bound to be a good thing.

 

Like you I think I'm aiming for a balance between enjoyment (and actually having something up and running) and fidelity to the real thing. I think I need to accept that I'm likely to make mistakes, but hopefully I can minimize them with the help of the RMweb community for this iteration, get something running, learn, and just enjoy it.

 

Thanks for pointing out the now obvious flaw with the goods yard / industry. More amendments to make

 

[The Stationmaster]

Well you've definitely got the trap points in which is a big step forward although they do look a little close to teh line they are orotecting but that is readily solved.  And before anyone chews your ears off for usinga double slip like that I can name a (G)WR location where that sort of thing existed so good on you for taking that approach.

 

Solving the 'arrival at the left hand platform' problem is very much up to you although it f you're modelling the transition era there were probably very few places where separate arrival and departure platforms still existed apart from the two I named (a I actually arrived at Neyland in a DMU although they were quire rare in West Wales at that time.  Very handy for doing teh shed there because it was between the arrival and departure platforms although the turntable was on the opposite side of the departure line - a very original sort of track layout.

 

But the one you really nb need to sort for the best operational improvement is separating the branch completely from the incoming line so you can have parallel movements - a definite operational benefit.

 

I think it might be worth adding the things the track layout allows and those it does -

1. Possible parallel moves are -

a.  .Main line arrival and a main line departure, or

b.  A main line departure and a branch line arrival or departure.

 

2. What can't be done

a.  no other movement is possible on the main or branch lines while an empty train is shunted back from the main line arrival  platform to transfer it to the departure platform, and

b. While that is happening no train can approach the scenic area on either the inward main line or the branch line, or

c.  You cannot have trains simultaneously approaching from the main line and branch line on the scenic section, or

d. You cannot have a main line arrival at the same time as a branch line departure or arrival, and

e.  You cannot have a branch line arrival or departure at the same time as a main line arrival

 

3.

a. Unless you have a local station pilot engine (unlikely in most places) a main line or branch llne freight would have to arriva at the main line arrival platform in order to be able to run round unles the train length is very considerably reduced in order to use the branch line platform

b.  Shunting an arriving freight would he ave the similar restrictive effect of shunting an empty passenger train from platform to platform although a main line departure could in this situation take place while shunting is being carried out.

Edited June 24, 2021 by The Stationmaster

[TonyMay]

A few classic problems, which are by no means unique to you:

1. The platforms look rather short and will struggle to contain decent length trains.  Castles and Kings with 2-3 coaches will look a tad silly.
2. The "goods" and "industry" looks like an afterthought that's been squeezed into the available space because it was a bit of baseboard without any track on it.  In reality, in steam days, a considerable amount of infrastructure was dedicated to handling freight traffic, which was not only profitable for the railways, it was an essential part of the national economy.
3. The branch line is really rather silly.

I'd get rid of the silly branch line, and the "goods" and "industry" bits which are really just a pointless waste of expensive points.  Then, make the bit where the branch line wiggles, a proper goods yard.  And while I think placing the station throat on the curve is a good idea, it should start further to the right as we're looking at it, which would allow you to have longer platforms on the left.  There's also more space there now because you've deleted the pointless goods/industry bit.

 

[Chimer]

4 hours ago, Blinddog said:

No idea yet how to solve the issue that no inbound train can arrive into the left hand platform - thanks for pointing it out through as I'd completely missed it. I'll need to research some more

 

 

Just search for "Minories" and you will find several hundred versions of a basic plan which solves that problem - including some with the station throat on a curve (this is one of mine ......)

 

[LNER4479]

Taking into account some of the comments above but trying to preserve as much of your original plan as possible, here is a suggestion of mine (apologies - I don't do computer drawing - but it is on graph paper to the same scale as yours so should fit)

 

Firstly, if you can include a small additional triangle on the inside of the curve top left then it opens up a lot more possibilities.

 

I've switched round the shed access point as shown which I much prefer as an approach. There is just one move for a loco to back out of any arrival road and it's straight on to the depot area. Plus you can use the little headshunt to move locos around in the shed area without interfering with mainline operations.

 

I've worked in the all important facing crossover just before the mainline platform so that a mainline train can arrive into the left hand platform.

 

I've run with Stationmaster's idea of the branchline being independent into the station. I've then taken advantage of this to introduce a run round loop for the goods trains as I wasn't too sure otherwise how you planned on shunting the goods area (Stationmaster might question this being a facing point off the branchline ... but there again, a goods train off the branch could use this to enter the goods yard?).

 

Off this loop are then the points to the 'industry', which I've re-sited to round the curve but no further round than the depot headshunt so that you still have a fair amount of countryside to go at on the right hand side of your room.

 

The dotted lines are simply a 'sense' check I often do to check the boundary between sidings and signalled passenger lines. In each of the three cases shown there are a pair of points working together as a crossover so 'tick' (in my mind, at least)

 

Hope some of that is useful.

Edited June 24, 2021 by LNER4479

[Pacific231G]

I wouldn't dismiss the branch line as "silly", though it probably needs at least one more siding at its terminus to give a goods train something to do. The  "reversing" terminus or branch with a twig has a long pedigree among very successful model railways, Buckingham (pre Grandborough Jct.) Berrow and Charford come immediately to mind and there are enough prototypes to justify it. Fort William, Deauville,  Aberystwyth, Fraseborough, Plymouth Millbay in earlier days  (though that was a bit different) and of course Bath Green Park (How could i have forgottrn that!)

I think I'd lose the industry at the main terminus (I can't think of any real examples of that unless the industry is docks) and move it to the branch, for the west country a milk factory comes immediately to mind. I'm not sure if you'd get away with through coaches but that would give you quite a lot more goods and tail load work. You'd probably need one or two  shunting roads to work that with wagons (or tankers) needing to come from the branch and be shunted onto main line workings  or vice versa. 

For a secondary main line I think four coaches is a bit short but five is entirely credible (look at Bradfield Gloucester Road as an example)  and I think you have the space for that so I'd lengthen the platforms and move the final trailing  crossover down the line a bit. I agree with Mike that a separate parcels platform would be unlikely as would a dedicated branch platform. That's really just what you've called them but I'd lengthen the third platform to have its ramp at the same place as the other two. Three passenger platforms is probably enough (again see Bradfield) and  even Penzance only had four (originally two with an arrivals and departure platform) . Penzance might actually be worth looking at as its suprisingly simple for the end of the Great Western/Western Region's main line. Do you need a couple of carriage sidings? That may depend on the traffic. 

 

Just a few thoughts

 

Edited June 25, 2021 by Pacific231G
adding Bath Green Park

[ITG]

11 hours ago, Blinddog said:

Like you I think I'm aiming for a balance between enjoyment (and actually having something up and running) and fidelity to the real thing. I think I need to accept that I'm likely to make mistakes, but hopefully I can minimize them with the help of the RMweb community for this iteration, get something running, learn, and just enjoy it.

I dare say you’re right about making mistakes. I certainly did. The biggest one I feel I made with my first layout was trying to fit both an office desk and a layout in the spare room, with the result that both were compromised. The former because there wasn’t enough space to work in, and the latter because it became too cramped for what I was trying to fit in (which was probably too much anyway).  But then I recognised that there was no reason to need an office for domestic admin - I was retired! So layout two took over the whole room.

 

Another key mistake in the second incarnation was, yes, the layout fills the room , but there is nowhere to use as a workbench. All off-layout work (of which there is much) has to take place out in the garage. Inconvenient.

 

Obviously your circumstances may be different, but space is a huge factor in every aspect of layout building. Not just the layout itself, but the room and the usage, etc

[Flying Pig]

14 hours ago, Pacific231G said:

Penzance might actually be worth looking at as its suprisingly simple for the end of the Great Western/Western Region's main line. Do you need a couple of carriage sidings? That may depend on the traffic. 

 

Penzance 1938: https://www.s-r-s.org.uk/html/gwf/S1090.htm

 

[Zomboid]

How many of you will there be to operate it? If you'll be on your own then two stations is probably going to be too much. If you want a branch then I'd just take it to another cassette rather than a tiddly BLT.

Edited June 25, 2021 by Zomboid

[The Stationmaster]

1 hour ago, Flying Pig said:

 

Penzance 1938: https://www.s-r-s.org.uk/html/gwf/S1090.htm

 

And immediately it stands out that there would be no room on most layouts for all that pointwork in the station approaches,  Even the 2 double slips using ordinary Peco track will take up a lot of space without adding any other pointwork beyond them.

 

There is always going to be a space consuming problem with a double line approach to a terminus if you do things in a way that gives good flexibility.  The layout drawn by 'LNER 4479' gives a massive amount of flexibility but the pointwork continues for a long way from the platform ends.  It all depends on what you want for your layout - some plain line countryside or a lot more railway in terms of pointwork extending over a greater distance but unless you have a lot of space it is very difficult to have both.   Once you have made that decision then it become a lot easier all round.

 

PS if you want a secondary mainline terminus then Kingswear had a single line approach, and a turntable, and the approach was on a curve was although there  was no branch going off from it.

https://www.s-r-s.org.uk/html/gwe/S918.htm

[Pacific231G]

5 hours ago, The Stationmaster said:

And immediately it stands out that there would be no room on most layouts for all that pointwork in the station approaches,  Even the 2 double slips using ordinary Peco track will take up a lot of space without adding any other pointwork beyond them.

 

There is always going to be a space consuming problem with a double line approach to a terminus if you do things in a way that gives good flexibility.  The layout drawn by 'LNER 4479' gives a massive amount of flexibility but the pointwork continues for a long way from the platform ends.  It all depends on what you want for your layout - some plain line countryside or a lot more railway in terms of pointwork extending over a greater distance but unless you have a lot of space it is very difficult to have both.   Once you have made that decision then it become a lot easier all round.

 

PS if you want a secondary mainline terminus then Kingswear had a single line approach, and a turntable, and the approach was on a curve was although there  was no branch going off from it.

https://www.s-r-s.org.uk/html/gwe/S918.htm

Hi Mike

I agree about the actual pointwork at Penzance. Even when it only had two plaforms and a single track throat, its approaches were quite long, but even Kingswear would require a fair length to include the whole layout. The same would though apply to any main line terminus, even a secondary one, and I think this does raise a question. Unless we stick to very simple BLTs (and most branch line termini were far from simple) , we're always going to be producing a simplified representation of how even an imaginary terminus would have been had it existed in reality.

I tend to think that if you can carry out all the basic moves required in a raliwaylike manner, albeit with fewer simultaneous movements, that's probably enough. How far you take that is of course a personal choice but a fully fledged model of even a small main line terminus is  likely to be a major club project. The Taunton MRG's scale model of Bath Green Park comes immediately to mind but, at 17m long, that's a pretty huge layout.   

Edited June 25, 2021 by Pacific231G

[RobinofLoxley]

One trouble with opening up to advice is that the results are always very similar because the advice is all geared towards realistic operations and real world prototypes. Indeed it would be difficult to find any other reasonable criteria, but personally I would say that its OK to leave some flaws in and try and work with what Phil originally proposed being his vision and not like somebody elses. I know he talks about real railways in the original post but models arent real railways and can have a mixture of real and model features while enabling the builder to learn the differences. For me, there's no problem having a branch line but on the original track proposal if you focus on maximising the flexibilty and access the locations of turnouts and sidings can be reorganised while leaving much of the original structure in place. For me the priority problem to solve is access for locos to the turntable as currently a train in platform 1 I will call it, to the xtreme left, blocks any loco from reaching it. So while the number of platforms is OK the location of turnouts needs a fair bit of surgery. LNER's proposal may work but its not the OP's any more, and without plotting it its hard to say if its viable. To me the industry/goods area is OK.

 

As far as not having a roundy roundy is concerned Phil, you would be able to have a shuttle operating so if you just want trains in motion sometimes without intervening you will be able to do that in due course.

[Blinddog]

On 25/06/2021 at 04:46, LNER4479 said:

Taking into account some of the comments above but trying to preserve as much of your original plan as possible, here is a suggestion of mine (apologies - I don't do computer drawing - but it is on graph paper to the same scale as yours so should fit)

 

Firstly, if you can include a small additional triangle on the inside of the curve top left then it opens up a lot more possibilities.

 

I've switched round the shed access point as shown which I much prefer as an approach. There is just one move for a loco to back out of any arrival road and it's straight on to the depot area. Plus you can use the little headshunt to move locos around in the shed area without interfering with mainline operations.

 

I've worked in the all important facing crossover just before the mainline platform so that a mainline train can arrive into the left hand platform.

 

I've run with Stationmaster's idea of the branchline being independent into the station. I've then taken advantage of this to introduce a run round loop for the goods trains as I wasn't too sure otherwise how you planned on shunting the goods area (Stationmaster might question this being a facing point off the branchline ... but there again, a goods train off the branch could use this to enter the goods yard?).

 

Off this loop are then the points to the 'industry', which I've re-sited to round the curve but no further round than the depot headshunt so that you still have a fair amount of countryside to go at on the right hand side of your room.

 

The dotted lines are simply a 'sense' check I often do to check the boundary between sidings and signalled passenger lines. In each of the three cases shown there are a pair of points working together as a crossover so 'tick' (in my mind, at least)

 

Hope some of that is useful.

I like it. A lot. I think it solves everything (bar the ‘silly’ branch). And, more importantly, it looks like it would be a lot of fun to operate. So a huge thank you from me. 

[LNER4479]

No worries - happy to help.

 

First job though is to draw it out on your computer to check it fits. It should do, I was quite careful to try and put the dots of the point ends more or less in the equivalent position where you had them.

 

As you do so, try different combinations of points for the (numerous!) crossovers. A curved point (86 or 87) can sometimes work just as well with a medium radius (95 or 96). Or my particular favourite - with a large radius Y (98). And bear in mind that however your computer draws it, there's always a little bit of 'give' once you're on site.

 

Branch line silly? Matter of opinion. For me, it's an alternative destination that adds operational interest. So, as well as A-to-B, you've also got B-to-C (and, by inference A-to-C via B). It's just that B to C isn't very far! You could visually disguise this with a bridge over the railway on the right hand curve as you approach the BLT. And an additional (diary?) siding is a good suggestion from earlier up in the page.

 

Be interested to see it drawn out in revised format. 

Edited June 26, 2021 by LNER4479

[The Stationmaster]

17 hours ago, Pacific231G said:

Hi Mike

I agree about the actual pointwork at Penzance. Even when it only had two plaforms and a single track throat, its approaches were quite long, but even Kingswear would require a fair length to include the whole layout. The same would though apply to any main line terminus, even a secondary one, and I think this does raise a question. Unless we stick to very simple BLTs (and most branch line termini were far from simple) , we're always going to be producing a simplified representation of how even an imaginary terminus would have been had it existed in reality.

I tend to think that if you can carry out all the basic moves required in a raliwaylike manner, albeit with fewer simultaneous movements, that's probably enough. How far you take that is of course a personal choice but a fully fledged model of even a small main line terminus is  likely to be a major club project. The Taunton MRG's scale model of Bath Green Park comes immediately to mind but, at 17m long, that's a pretty huge layout.   

But the situation is that usually it is inevitable that we selectively compress track layouts in order to include what we want - the decision then is about what we do want - is it more  pointwork or is it plain line and scenery?  Inevitably with a single line the overall length of pointwork will be reduced compared with a double line because there will effectively be one crossover length less in order to create the same level of flexibility.

 

To my mind - and my reason for spelling it earlier- the only 'faults' with the original layout plan were the lack of a separate line for the branch which heavily constricted movenents and hampered a lot of flexibility although on the other hand with only one operator and a sparse timetable that wouldn't necessarily be a big problem.  The other 'fault' was the extremely goods facilitis and the impact on them that shunting 'the industry' would have.  

 

Separate arrival and departure 'main line' platforms were not necessarily a problem for that era on the WR (but meant shun ting to tie up the layout even further) and neither was having an awkward link to the turntable.  Most of those features, except the branchline and very limited good facilities, existed somewhere on the Region at the sort of WR terminus the OP had in mind for the period he intended to model.   But equally if he wanted a fully flexible layout 'LNER 4479' has demonstarted a way in which it could be done in the available space.

 

Incidentally I certainly don't think the branchline is a silly idea - it's a far from unusual feature on model railways and there were examples on the real railway  so it isn't an entirely fictional arrangement.  And as 'LNER 4479' has already noted it will add potential operating opportunities.

[DCB]

The basic premise is a bit dodgy, most of the interesting branches had closed by 1962.  I aim for 1957-1962 with a few anachronisms like a Dean Goods and a Saint but my Diesels are all pre 1963 and I turn a bind eye to a Star double heading a Hymek

 

The branch adds a lot of interest with trains running parallel and overtaking, even racing as long as the branch is separate,  the OP having the branch fouling the down main misses a trick

I would have just one platform for the branch and the goods yard off the branch for space reasons.   Operationally trains can arrive and disgorge passengers and be removed empty stock very quickly, much quicker than pushing empty stock into a platform and loading it.  Trains leaving 30 minutes apart were often platformed together in stem days, so I would try to have all arrivals at the same platform, and run round or use a spare loco to move the stock to a departure platform or carriage siding, back to the junction toot sweet on August Bank Holiday weekend.  It was rostered for train locos to shunt stock for other trains, not just small dedicated pilot engines, 

I have drawn a few suggested tweaks to the OP drawing.  Maybe shorten the plan the top as shown and add it to the bottom? or not.  Loco depot off up main so back platform can be used etc.   See lower plan for station detail

The branch station has been changed to a late 19th c GWR 4 point station used as terminus and through stations and now has 2 sidings sorry about the curved points but passengers take the outside so shouldn't be an issue

 

 

Edited June 26, 2021 by DavidCBroad

[Blinddog]

On 26/06/2021 at 19:04, LNER4479 said:

No worries - happy to help.

 

First job though is to draw it out on your computer to check it fits. It should do, I was quite careful to try and put the dots of the point ends more or less in the equivalent position where you had them.

 

As you do so, try different combinations of points for the (numerous!) crossovers. A curved point (86 or 87) can sometimes work just as well with a medium radius (95 or 96). Or my particular favourite - with a large radius Y (98). And bear in mind that however your computer draws it, there's always a little bit of 'give' once you're on site.

 

Branch line silly? Matter of opinion. For me, it's an alternative destination that adds operational interest. So, as well as A-to-B, you've also got B-to-C (and, by inference A-to-C via B). It's just that B to C isn't very far! You could visually disguise this with a bridge over the railway on the right hand curve as you approach the BLT. And an additional (diary?) siding is a good suggestion from earlier up in the page.

 

Be interested to see it drawn out in revised format. 

 

On 26/06/2021 at 23:45, DavidCBroad said:

The basic premise is a bit dodgy, most of the interesting branches had closed by 1962.  I aim for 1957-1962 with a few anachronisms like a Dean Goods and a Saint but my Diesels are all pre 1963 and I turn a bind eye to a Star double heading a Hymek

 

The branch adds a lot of interest with trains running parallel and overtaking, even racing as long as the branch is separate,  the OP having the branch fouling the down main misses a trick

I would have just one platform for the branch and the goods yard off the branch for space reasons.   Operationally trains can arrive and disgorge passengers and be removed empty stock very quickly, much quicker than pushing empty stock into a platform and loading it.  Trains leaving 30 minutes apart were often platformed together in stem days, so I would try to have all arrivals at the same platform, and run round or use a spare loco to move the stock to a departure platform or carriage siding, back to the junction toot sweet on August Bank Holiday weekend.  It was rostered for train locos to shunt stock for other trains, not just small dedicated pilot engines, 

I have drawn a few suggested tweaks to the OP drawing.  Maybe shorten the plan the top as shown and add it to the bottom? or not.  Loco depot off up main so back platform can be used etc.   See lower plan for station detail

The branch station has been changed to a late 19th c GWR 4 point station used as terminus and through stations and now has 2 sidings sorry about the curved points but passengers take the outside so shouldn't be an issue

 

 

So, taking into LNER's redrawn plan and David's branch station suggestions, the redrawn plan is as below. I've ditched the 'industry' but kept the good run round loop. I'm assuming that the short headshunt for the goods loop will function as the required trap points?

 

I'm (obviously!) no great shakes at using anyrail but I think it all fits and should work. All points are streamline medium, long or curved. I have some of the short points, but after what I've read here, they'll stay in their boxes and the wallet will need to take another hit to replace them.

 

The main line platforms are over 1.7m as shown and I can probably coax another 100mm as I plan on making bespoke platforms using the Scalescenes pack rather than using the Hornby platforms shown (which seem to be the only option in anyrail without drawing your own). So easily enough for a 4 x Mk 1 coach train (1.4m as measured with my largest loco), and maybe 5 at a push. The branch I plan to limit to a maximum of a large prairie plus 3 Mk 1 suburbans, so again fine as the branch terminus platform will curve to follow the track beyond the start of the straight platform shown (just can't draw it).

 

Hopefully this is a big improvement on the original?