Victoria Park - tweaking

[JohnR]

I'm now looking at my next layout, and am taken with Ian Futers' Victoria Park, to make use of my growing collection of Scottish Region diesels. Obviously I am changing it from O to OO, but thought I would tweak it a little, and give it a centre road and also make the station a little grander with an overall roof - I've got the Scalescenes model to build for that. I also wanted the exit to the fiddle yard to be parallel to the board (hoping to use an existing fiddle yard!)

 

Now, a straight copy is 5 feet by 1 foot in OO, but even my (minor) modifications seem to take up a lot more space (something I dont really have!)

 

Any thoughts on how to achieve this?

Edited October 9, 2021 by JohnR

[Mark Forrest]

You could replace the two points at the bottom of your plan with a double slip, that should save some space.

[JohnR]

1 hour ago, Mark Forrest said:

You could replace the two points at the bottom of your plan with a double slip, that should save some space.

 

A double slip wouldnt replace those two points - the line from the headshunt would go into the upper road, not the centre road. 

[Mark Forrest]

1 hour ago, JohnR said:

 

A double slip wouldnt replace those two points - the line from the headshunt would go into the upper road, not the centre road. 

I'm not sure I understand what you mean.

1500mm overall length with shortest platform at around 600mm (that's in P4 using B6 turnouts and a 1:7 double slip).  Headshunt leads to either the short platform or the centre road as it had in your modified plan.

[JohnR]

10 minutes ago, Mark Forrest said:

I'm not sure I understand what you mean.

1500mm overall length with shortest platform at around 600mm (that's in P4 using B6 turnouts and a 1:7 double slip).  Headshunt leads to either the short platform or the centre road as it had in your modified plan.

 

I'm using Peco Code 75, so that wont quite work:

 

 

 

[Mark Forrest]

9 minutes ago, JohnR said:

 

I'm using Peco Code 75, so that wont quite work:

 

 

 

The slip is drawn straight, or very near to straight, surely you just need to add a short, curved length of track between the first turnout and the slip (which is what I had done on the Templot plan)?  This moves the slip to the left but introduces enough curve to better align the  with your centre road.

[Zomboid]

You'll get more length by doing away with that stubby headshunt.

[sb67]

I've ended up using the same plan, albeit reversed, on my layout, Docklands Sidings. I tweaked it by extending the headshunt into the fidd!e yard enabling it to be used as a runround if I fancy. 

As Zomboid said if you dont have the headshunt you could get a few inches back.

It's a nice plan whatever, I'll look forward to seeing you develop it. 

 

Edited October 9, 2021 by sb67

[5BarVT]

By taking the centre road of the 3 car platform you lose the length of a point plus clearance distance.  If you take it off the 2 car platform it’s just a point length.  To get the separation between the platforms to make room for the centre road, try replacing the headshunt point with an RH curved.  (Hopefully that doesn’t do nasty things to the width.) For the 2 car platform, do it like Lime St and retain the full length just blocking the centre road when full.

Food for thought?

Paul.

[JohnR]

3 hours ago, Mark Forrest said:

The slip is drawn straight, or very near to straight, surely you just need to add a short, curved length of track between the first turnout and the slip (which is what I had done on the Templot plan)?  This moves the slip to the left but introduces enough curve to better align the  with your centre road.

 

Ah right, thanks, that wasnt clear to me from your original diagram. It does look like it would work, although it now seems to lack the smooth flowing curves of the original.

 

Quote

You'll get more length by doing away with that stubby headshunt.

 

Yes, but its really needed for the pilot to stand between shunting the parcels, at least in the original.

[Zomboid]

Couldn't the pilot stand on the centre road instead, if that were provided?

[Harlequin]

Using a 3-way like Steve did will help keep the pointwork compact and for smoothness I think it's important to avoid the slip. So you could do something like this:

That's a Code75 asymmetric 3-way, a curved left and a medium right. The 3-way is angled 4° and the track turns by that amount before it reaches the baseboard edge perpendicularly.

 

Edited April 12, 2022 by Harlequin

[JohnR]

Thanks Phil, that looks great. Still keeps that nice flow. 

[Flying Pig]

23 hours ago, Harlequin said:

Using a 3-way like Steve did will help keep the pointwork compact and for smoothness I think it's important to avoid the slip. So you could do something like this:

That's a Code75 asymmetric 3-way, a curved left and a medium right. The 3-way is angled 4° and the track turns by that amount before it reaches the baseboard edge perpendicularly.

 

 

Alternatively, use a large Y for the brown point and a standard point (probably medium) for the bay, which makes the wiggle in the design a little more flowing.

 

That's pretty much what I did for a plan I drew up in N years ago - I think it predates the Code 55 tandem point - but I had the loco spur as the down line of a double track approach. I considered using a traverser or sector plate loco release, hidden under an overall roof, though that does bring its own problems if trains are standing on the other lines.

 

You could make the loco spur the stub of a running line on this plan, with the approach tracks singled, which would fit the diesel era setting.

[JohnR]

Thanks all for your thoughts, I think thats now a good track plan.

 

Just need to work out the signalling now - I'm assuming 2 aspect colour light, but would there be any on the approach? Or more likely to be "off-scene". Been looking at the Train Tech ones and quite fancy having a feather, or something just to be fancy!

[sb67]

8 hours ago, JohnR said:

Thanks all for your thoughts, I think thats now a good track plan.

 

Just need to work out the signalling now - I'm assuming 2 aspect colour light, but would there be any on the approach? Or more likely to be "off-scene". Been looking at the Train Tech ones and quite fancy having a feather, or something just to be fancy!

 

I'm no an expert but I think any signals on the approach would be "off scene". Not sure how it would look or how prototypical it is but maybe you could assume there was a junction "off scene" and you could have a feather as a starter signal from one of the platforms? 

[5BarVT]

14 hours ago, JohnR said:

Just need to work out the signalling now - I'm assuming 2 aspect colour light, but would there be any on the approach? Or more likely to be "off-scene". Been looking at the Train Tech ones and quite fancy having a feather, or something just to be fancy!

Depends how prototypically accurate you want to be and what era.  A feather at a terminal station is something I can’t say I’ve ever seen, either coming in or going out.

To know how it should be signalled, you need to have an idea of what (theoretically) lies beyond the bridge, though as it’s theoretical there’s always the option of adjust what’s beyond to fit the signalling.

If you want lots of input (possibly conflicting and confusing . . .) ask the question in the pway and signalling section.

I would suggest three aspect signals leaving the station as that implies facilities for a more intensive service.

Paul.

[Flying Pig]

You'll also need trap points on the middle road and loco spur at least and possibly the 'bay' depending on how it's used.

[JohnR]

12 minutes ago, Flying Pig said:

You'll also need trap points on the middle road and loco spur at least and possibly the 'bay' depending on how it's used.

 

While I agree in theory, I probably wouldnt include them on such a small layout as this. 

[5BarVT]

Again, depending how accurate you want to be, dummy traps are an option.

Paul.

[Flying Pig]

37 minutes ago, JohnR said:

 

While I agree in theory, I probably wouldnt include them on such a small layout as this. 

 

Fair enough - I'd have suggested dummy ones anyway as you aren't going to get them rtr.  

[JohnR]

19 hours ago, Flying Pig said:

 

Fair enough - I'd have suggested dummy ones anyway as you aren't going to get them rtr.  

 

I didnt fancy spending £14 a pop on the Peco ones that dont actually do anything.