Trackplan advice needed

[cromptonnut]

Ok here's the latest itineration of my O gauge track plan - I'm hoping to start tracklaying soon! I'd like your inputs please.

 

 

The scenic area (from the left to the road on the right) is 12ft x 3ft. To the right will be a 4ft cassette holder board, non scenic. The track continues beyond the road bridge simply as that's how I drew it in XTrackCAD!

 

Short story is thus. Small branch line terminus, south west-ish, early 80's-ish, DCC controlled. The track used to continue across the road (black line, left) on a level crossing but is now truncated and a buffer stop terminates the line at the end of the platform. I'd like to have through running but don't have the room at home - it may be that at some point in the future I can add an extra board, which will faciliate this - but not now!

 

The platform is brown, the car park grey. A small station building sits on the wide bit of the platform. The thinner part of the platform is around 6 inches wide.

 

The bottom right line (under the other road bridge as a scenic break) is the main line in, which allows access to a bay platform and the main platform. The line above it, also going under the road bridge, is a runround loop/freight loop, where loco hauled services reverse their stock into then runs round via off-scene trackwork and pushes it back into the platform.

 

Freight services run into the loop as standard, the loco detaches and the private shunter from the factory sidings runs out into the loop to take the wagons into the depot (the purple line denotes the boundary between the two, which I hope to install a gate of some sort that can be opened automatically). This arrangement worked at Chard Junction dairy, with the shunter certified for use on the main line within the passing loop area. Wagons are pulled by the shunter into the single siding at the factory, and shuffled around in the yard as necessary, then taken back out into the loop in due course to be taken away when the loco arrives (which you won't see as it will be off-scene - the shunter just pushes the wagons, uncouples, then the wagons move and that's it; possibly can do this move by hand).

 

The bay platform is 3ft long so it's long enough to hold a 2 car DMU and can have a unit run into it without delay if there's any freight activity going on in the loop. It is envisaged that the majority of passenger services are DMU hauled with the occasional 3 carriage service in the main platform.

 

The above plan will be curved a little more than it shows but it's just drawn that way for ease at present. Scenically it will have a low relief factory as the backscene, low relief houses on the left, the front will basically be the car park (the view being from the car park side rather than the platform side is a little unusual) and there will be open wasteland to the right with a dropped section for a small stream.

 

I've toyed with the idea of some truncated and overgrown/rusty track buried in the undergrowth to add a headshunt to the bay, partly as it saves 1) wasting a £40 point I don't necessarily need, and 2) fills in a little gap butI don't want to completely cover the board in track.

 

It seems functional enough but I can't help but think it's "missing something" and that's why I'm asking you guys and gals for assistance.

[Wheeltapper]

I think "not looking right" may be something to do with a preconception that a platform area should have a crossover . If its not visible it aint right. So maybe its just a visual thing as because its off stage its going to work anyway.

 

A small shed for the industrial loco at the end of the head shunt - even if its only represented half relief may improve the look.

[cromptonnut]

The real shunter at Chard Junction didn't have a shed - it just lived out in the open (I think with a plastic bag over the exhaust so it didn't fill with rain) but I do like the idea of a rusted, dented, tin shed (a "linny" in west country parlance - literally "lean-to") to house it. I'll give that some thought.

 

As the station was only single track (partly as there's no room to represent the second track and a platform) I don't think there's any benefit in making it look as though it was once a double track all the way through; I'm sure there are other places where a run-round loop existed outside of the station area itself.

 

I'm just nervous that the trackplan is going to end up being a little "restrictive" in some ways, and hoped that someone else might identify that elusive what I think is missing but can't see. I'm sure that operationally it'll all work, but it would be nice to make things more interesting if there was a way.

 

I'm trying to stick to Peco trackwork as this is my first experiment in O gauge, and although some custom made pointwork might help with flexibility, I don't feel ready to start hand-building track quite yet. A future layout incarnation, or a revised design, later on, perhaps...

[Kenton]

A few "issues" strike me right away:

 

There is no access from the branch to main up line (I guess we need to imagine a crossover the other side of the bridge in the FY but then that would have meant an extra "expensive" point when a crossover/slip would have done the job where the point to the branch platform is. Not only that the same track "rationalisation would have done away with the next point to the now dead-end platform - also giving a longer and better separated yard.

 

I always have problems with yards that are "back-to-front" undoubtedly they existed by I wonder why they were ever built that way.

Think of it a local arrives with a short - in this case - very short goods straight into the reception track then shunts them back into the 2 sidings. But what about departing trains - very difficult to depart loco first and no loop to run round. maybe when the route was a single track through line the goods reception would have been a loop rejoining the other side o f the bridge.

 

Of course there is the really obvious solution - the line was only ever single track and the goods sidings were the other way round. ???

 

I think you have to look to the history first, which came first the factory or the railway, what was the full track plan and then rationalise it as it would have done.

[cromptonnut]

There is no access from the branch to main up line (I guess we need to imagine a crossover the other side of the bridge in the FY but then that would have meant an extra "expensive" point when a crossover/slip would have done the job where the point to the branch platform is. Not only that the same track "rationalisation would have done away with the next point to the now dead-end platform - also giving a longer and better separated yard.

 

I'm not sure what you mean as 'branch'? Did you mean 'bay'? The track at the bottom of the plan is the "main line", the other line forms a loop which join up to make the single running line some couple of hundred real yards beyond the road bridge. Am I right, therefore, thinking that you mean there should be a double slip where the point to the bay is? As the cost of 2 points is about that of a double slip it's certainly doable - although I was under the impression that such expensive pieces of track were only used where they had to be unless there was no room for standard points?

 

I always have problems with yards that are "back-to-front" undoubtedly they existed by I wonder why they were ever built that way. Think of it a local arrives with a short - in this case - very short goods straight into the reception track then shunts them back into the 2 sidings. But what about departing trains - very difficult to depart loco first and no loop to run round. maybe when the route was a single track through line the goods reception would have been a loop rejoining the other side of the bridge.

 

I could build the yard the other way round, although space would be tight. What you're referring to as the loop/goods reception is in fact a loop that I already mentioned above rejoins the main single line several hundred yards beyond the road bridge.

 

Of course there is the really obvious solution - the line was only ever single track and the goods sidings were the other way round. ???

 

I think you have to look to the history first, which came first the factory or the railway, what was the full track plan and then rationalise it as it would have done.

 

The siding arrangement as it stands means the shunter is always at the "single road" end of the train, so it can pull wagons into the yard and push them into the sidings or out into the loop; otherwise it would have to run round the loop to allow the train loco to couple up as there's no 'run round' facilities in the yard - again, using Chard Junction as an example the shunter always remained at one end of the wagons. The way I have it seems to make sense to me, so perhaps I haven't explained it properly? The only alternatives are extend the boards (which I can't do, sadly) to allow longer sidings the other end, or to run the freight sidings through a separate bridge and not have them connected to the mainline in the visible section? That comes across to me as perhaps a little boring operationally as you do away with movements from the loop into the yard (also an option for loco hauled passenger services to run round by reversing into the loop).

[Wheeltapper]

I can see your point about the shunter remaining at one end of the train at all times and I wonder if you completely reversed the industrial lines to access as a trailing point off the loop and then the headshunt could disapear through another bridge hole to another part of the factory /fiddleyard as an extra source of traffic that that would help.

[Kenton]

Yes I didd mean "bay" platform.

I was trying to get my head round the approach under the bridge. If we are talking about a single line worked - before and after rationalisation - so the top line is just the goods loop then there is no issue about the point work (the other single point for the loop is in the FY)

But if this is supposed to be a double line to this station then that bay platform just does not look correct.

 

The goods yard will also work having a permanent yard shunter to take wagons off the train left in the loop.

 

... so basically ignore me - I wasn't taking it all in

[cromptonnut]

Wheeltapper: I had thought about extending the freight yard as you suggest but I'm not convinced it would work - what I've called the "freight yard" is actually the sidings of a dairy (hence the ongoing Chard Junction references) so would be handling milk tanks, and the occasional Railfreight box van to bring in and take out palleted goods (plastic carton/tubs and paper in, out dried milk etc - were there any refridgerated box vans in the 80's for butter, yoghurts, cream etc or would that all be by lorry?) I think adding in a 'second industry' would probably be overkill given the space I have?

 

Kenton: Yep, you're correct, it is a single line into the station with the second line being the goods/runround loop. I do like your idea though of a slip and giving the entrance to the yard another foot or so of track. I'll have a play and see how it looks but essentially the concept will remain the same.

 

 

I don't want the layout to appear too overcrowded or busy, it is after all just a quiet backwater terminus somewhere, albeit about 50 years on from how most get modelled!

[Wheeltapper]

Memory is a bit hazy but I think it was only milk in by rail tanker at Chard in the 1980's , most other dairies in the area had lost their rail connection or had closed altogether so by then road transport had taken over virtually all supply of other materials .

[cromptonnut]

Yes, it was the early 80's but I'm stretching the timeline a little

 

In about 1981 I think it was, a brand new shiny set of TMV tankers (http://gallery6801.fotopic.net/c1817088.html) appeared one day, sat in the yard for months never moving, then disappeared and that was it. I have no idea where they went to.

[Wheeltapper]

It was about then that the MMB Road Tanker Depot which served all the big dairies in the area with 5000 gallon capacity trailers opened on part of the site that had been Highbridge S & D Locomotive Works . I am sure that change from rail was bitterly regretted as it was not unknown for as many as 20 tankers being lined up at Chard waiting to discharge when they had no silo space available which had a knock on effect on other dairies supplies and which needed teams of drivers having to be sent down to relieve as the others ran out of hours.

 

The whole south west dairy industry came to a near standstill on several occasions due to problems like this not only at Chard but also other dairies such as Thornbury and Stonehouse which were only served by road.

[Flying Pig]

To the right will be a 4ft cassette holder board, non scenic.

Forgive me if my maths is wrong but isn't 4ft less than 3 Mk1s in O scale?

[cromptonnut]

Forgive me if my maths is wrong but isn't 4ft less than 3 Mk1s in O scale?

 

Correct, a Mk1 is about 18", I know what I meant!

[Dave777]

As the station was only single track (partly as there's no room to represent the second track and a platform) I don't think there's any benefit in making it look as though it was once a double track all the way through; I'm sure there are other places where a run-round loop existed outside of the station area itself.

 

I'm just nervous that the trackplan is going to end up being a little "restrictive" in some ways, and hoped that someone else might identify that elusive what I think is missing but can't see. I'm sure that operationally it'll all work, but it would be nice to make things more interesting if there was a way.

 

 

Couple of quick thoughts: if you moved the headshunt/kickback further 'up' the board you could then have the space where the lifted track was. Might add to the overall 'coherence' of the trackplan, but as you say there are examples of runround loops being away from the platform (or at least I've seen them on layouts...)

 

I get your concerns about the finished layout having interesting operating (a problem I have battled with for years), and I always think a runround loop is conducive to this. There are plenty of other people who disagree, but rarely have I doodled a plan without one. On the flip side, a plan without one makes for more operating 'snags'... which makes for more interesting operating.

 

Final thought - are you operating from the front or back? If operating from the front (ie, the bottom as we look at the trackplan) then the main chunk of the coupling and uncoupling is being done over on the other side of the board in the yard. Will that be a problem (stretching, reaching, etc)?

[cromptonnut]

Hi Dave, not quite sure what you mean by "move the kickback up the board" - which corner are you talking about?

 

I do need a runround there of some description, as being a rural station there would be a need for loco release and it doesn't justify an 08 permanently based there (and it's unlikely the private shunter would have done that for passenger services, although it's fine for the freight) - and if I keep it partly on-scene at least it does add something operationally.

 

Operation will probably be from the front, and although I do take your point about the 'reach', my hope is that I'll be able to install Kadees or some other 'hands off' coupler - although three links are of course more realistic (and less hassle in O) I'm prepared to sacrifice a little realism for the sake of convenience, as long as my diesel locos are running off a 12v motor I guess it's not such a big deal.

[Dave777]

I was thinking of something like this:

 

 

So the purple would be the disused or taken up line. But, having just re-read this thread, I thought I saw somewhere this morning that you didn't think there was enough room between the platform road and the kickback to enable this feature but now I can't find it, so this suggestion may be completely unneeded!

 

 

Some other thoughts:

 

The sidings at top right – what if they ended actually ‘in’ the factory itself? So could there be some sort of shuttered door or the like that the sidings enter into for just a couple of inches to suggest that the siding goes into a covered loading area? Could this actually be just the front siding and the back one disappears behind it to emerge into the fiddleyard? Then you could shunt wagons in here and switch them around (so different wagons emerge from those that got shunted in – full for empty for example). This is similar to what Wheeltapper suggested about extending the sidings under the bridge, but why not simply use the factory that’s on the backscene instead?

 

What’s the scenic treatment for the left hand end? If you add a fiddleyard at this end in the future, how will you hide the exit? Could you extend the platform and move the station building so that it sits over to the left so that trains go behind it? Could the old level crossing cottage be used if you don’t want to move the platform?

 

As the bridge is currently drawn on the right hand side you may be able to see under/through it into the fiddleyard – if the bridge was angled more so that it crossed the line at right angles it would be angled away from the viewer or operator and it would then make trains ‘enter’ into the scenic section more, from an area you can’t so easily see. Could you even have something sitting next to the bridge in that green bit (old derelict signal box?) to hide the exit more? You’re only going to be trundling the stock about at low speed (like I will be), it won’t be an express hacking round the garden, so when it does emerge it needs to make an entrance!

[Kenton]

I know they are expensive in 7mm (cheaper if you build your own) but you could compress the sidings with one ?

[Donw]

I think the problem is that 1/2 of the station is missing. If you redraw the plan with the far end of the run round rather than the fiddle yard it should make more sense. When you have got the idea of the whole station in your head you can then imagine the far side of the road bridge instead of the fiddle yard. It then becomes easier to imagine services running in and out.

Donw

[Wheeltapper]

Thats a very good point by Don and its a method I have used with success on several occasions .

If you draw out the complete plan for the station as you think it would have been and then overlay that plan with one the size of the model in order to extract the exact information you need for construction you may get a much clearer picture of how things will work and its possible by adjusting the overlay by a very small amount you may improve the end result considerably

[cromptonnut]

Dave777: "So the purple would be the disused or taken up line. But, having just re-read this thread, I thought I saw somewhere this morning that you didn't think there was enough room between the platform road and the kickback to enable this feature but now I can't find it, so this suggestion may be completely unneeded!"

 

You've given me an idea now ... if I laid in that second line in the station area, I could make that the kickback and have a disused, overgrown second platform? I'll have a play with xtrackcad.

 

 

Dave777: "The sidings at top right – what if they ended actually ‘in’ the factory itself?"

 

That wouldn't particularly work based on the prototype I have in mind, the milk tanks were loaded externally. It might work for the box vans - although they'd more likely have a raised loading bay/platform and a fork lift to unload.

 

 

Dave777: "What’s the scenic treatment for the left hand end? If you add a fiddleyard at this end in the future, how will you hide the exit? Could you extend the platform and move the station building so that it sits over to the left so that trains go behind it? Could the old level crossing cottage be used if you don’t want to move the platform?"

 

I was going to have low relief cottages and some undergrowth in the gardens so there'd just be a mousehole to go through.

 

 

Dave777: "As the bridge is currently drawn on the right hand side you may be able to see under/through it into the fiddleyard – if the bridge was angled more so that it crossed the line at right angles it would be angled away from the viewer or operator and it would then make trains ‘enter’ into the scenic section more, from an area you can’t so easily see. Could you even have something sitting next to the bridge in that green bit (old derelict signal box?) to hide the exit more? You’re only going to be trundling the stock about at low speed (like I will be), it won’t be an express hacking round the garden, so when it does emerge it needs to make an entrance!"

 

I'd just drawn it at right angles for laziness on the plan - I will have it at an angle like the other side. I like the idea of a block - and a derelict brakevan on an isolated disconnected length of track (a bit like the one in the undergrowth at Ancaster in Lincolnshire but that's in a connected siding) mildly appeals

 

 

DonW: What do you mean by "half the station is missing"?

[Dave777]

I believe they are talking about actually drawing the whole station out and then showing which bit of it you are actually modelling.

 

Similar to what I did here: http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php/topic/7509-elwood-east-n-gauge-1970s/

[cromptonnut]

I believe they are talking about actually drawing the whole station out and then showing which bit of it you are actually modelling.

 

Similar to what I did here: http://www.rmweb.co....-n-gauge-1970s/

 

 

Ah ok. Well the left is a road with a level crossing rather than a bridge, so what is shown of the station is all there is. It's a small country station that would never have handled 10 carriage expresses anyway - I'm tempted to run a 2 carriage loco hauled "failed DMU substitute" but apart from that it'll be the 121 and another DMU if I can find one.

 

Beyond the road bridge to the right are simply two parallel lines, the lowermost being the running line and the upper one being the freight loop, which several hundred yards further on simply goes back into a single track - that's all there is to it essentially.

 

I was tempted by the idea of a station divided in half by a road bridge but as I'd need 2ft minimum beyond the bridge for a small traverser to move the loco for running round, I didn't feel it was worth it when my space is restricted as it is. I'd love another 4ft but short of knocking a wall down and buying my neighbour's flat, that's not gonna happen!

 

Having said that, how your "Elwood East" plan, which is essentially completely the opposite of what I was thinking, is an excellent idea especially for saving space. Sorry to hear you're a month behind in your planning but hope you get the inspiration to crack on for the competition. I might just have a play around with xtrackcad and see how it translates to the space I have available.

[Glorious NSE]

Freight services run into the loop as standard, the loco detaches and the private shunter from the factory sidings runs out into the loop to take the wagons into the depot (the purple line denotes the boundary between the two, which I hope to install a gate of some sort that can be opened automatically). This arrangement worked at Chard Junction dairy, with the shunter certified for use on the main line within the passing loop area. Wagons are pulled by the shunter into the single siding at the factory, and shuffled around in the yard as necessary, then taken back out into the loop in due course to be taken away when the loco arrives (which you won't see as it will be off-scene - the shunter just pushes the wagons, uncouples, then the wagons move and that's it; possibly can do this move by hand).

 

If you wanted to imply the departing wagons having a loco I guess you could always have the inbound loco "lay over" in the bay platform before taking the return working back out. When the industrial puts the outbound wagons in the loop for collection that's the hint for the BR crew to fire up their loco to head home again.

 

Whilst that blocks up a platform i'd suggest at a rural location in the middle of the day you're not likely to have a sudden "rush hour" passenger service anyhow.

 

The other thought is that the point to the industry would always be set towards the industry anyhow under normal circumstances so the industrial wouldn't neccesarily have to shove the outbound loads all the way onto the loop, just far enough to clear the gate would do.

 

Assuming fairly light loads (implied by fairly short sidings!) that would give you space to have the loco re-appear on scene to pick them up?

[cromptonnut]

If you wanted to imply the departing wagons having a loco I guess you could always have the inbound loco "lay over" in the bay platform before taking the return working back out. When the industrial puts the outbound wagons in the loop for collection that's the hint for the BR crew to fire up their loco to head home again.

 

Whilst that blocks up a platform i'd suggest at a rural location in the middle of the day you're not likely to have a sudden "rush hour" passenger service anyhow.

 

The other thought is that the point to the industry would always be set towards the industry anyhow under normal circumstances so the industrial wouldn't neccesarily have to shove the outbound loads all the way onto the loop, just far enough to clear the gate would do.

 

Assuming fairly light loads (implied by fairly short sidings!) that would give you space to have the loco re-appear on scene to pick them up?

 

Maximum train lengths all round are restricted by the fact I only have about 4ft for a cassette based storage yard so yes, probably 4 or 5 wagons at most. Going back to my prototype inspiration, Chard Junction trains were (I believe) maximum six 6 wheel tanks loaded due to the climb from Exeter St Davids to Central. I do like what you're suggesting though as meaning two sets of wagons, with the empty ones being drawn into the sidings then the loaded ones pushed out, for the loco to run round and then take them away. They'd look identical anyway I guess being tanks or box vans but it's the principle!

 

I do like the thought of the loco sitting ticking over in the bay (as I'm looking at sound chips) although at the present plan would be a Z movement with the trackwork - and if I follow Dave777's "Elwood East" concept then I wouldn't have a "bay" anyway - however the train loco could then run forward and park there instead. I guess I'm just a little unsure about having just one functioning passenger platform meaning I am restricted with what I am able to have on-scene at the same time.

[Glorious NSE]

It would only be restricted for the time it took the industrial to sort out the outbound wagons - you could do a "busy" passenger period either side of the main line freight running.