Trackplan advice needed

[Dave777]

I'm going to be bold - start again. This isn't the plan. From the first post you felt there was something missing or not spot on, and as the thread continues it's just throwing up more issues with it.

 

I think you need to ditch this and start with a clean sheet of paper.

 

 

One way to instantly find 4 feet of siding space: put something in front of the fiddleyard (very diagrammatic drawing here):

 

 

 

One final thing I’m just going to chuck out there – too much being attempted in the space available? Loco hauled passenger, DMUs, freight, an industrial shunter. You could end up with 3 locos on the scenic part at one time which seems pretty packed to me, and the DMU is steering you in the direction of ‘needing’ a bay platform. At the very least I’d ditch the bay and run the DMU into the main platform instead. Even just doing that would remove some planning restrictions and allow a bit more room.

 

 

[cromptonnut]

Hi Dave, I think your last comment came across a little harsh but I do know what you mean. However, there's been quite a lot of messing about with XTrackCAD before getting to that track plan which almost has what I'm looking for.

 

If I take out the bay, and extend the 'loop' track into the station to make a second platform (thus providing loco stabling as you mentioned, also a little more activity possibility with shunting wagons in and out) then all I need to consider is how to get in a second platform - again, the real Chard Junction second platform was demolished and there's just a mud embankment there with a fence on top so I don't necessarily need the full width, although I do like the idea of an overgrown disused platform (similar to the one at Axminster as can be seen http://www.disusedrailways.co.uk/images/West%20country/Axminster%2021.7.81.jpg)

 

One of the small problems is board joints which would end up with a left to right join right where the second platform should begin so I may need to do some slight rearranging of positionings there. As far as 'loco hauled, DMU and freight in 12ft" as I only plan to have the one loco at present (budgetting restrictions) then I don't think it's going to always end up too busy. You've also got to think of the balance between "keeping people interested at exhibitions" as I think most of us would agree that if you ran the 'real' timetable on many branch line terminii (three trains in each direction during the week and on a sunday) we'd never get anywhere!

 

Thanks to everyone that has contributed so far though as it's made me think "do I really need that bit" and it has made me think about each aspect. I'm sure there are a number of things that I haven't explained properly but it all works in my head

[Dave777]

Oops, if that came across as harsh then I'm glad I only posted the editted version!

 

The point I was unsuccessfully attempting to suggest was that a plan can keep getting revised and tweaked and adjusted but if it's still not getting there then there comes a point where you have to question if the fundementals of the plan itself are at fault. For me this plan has now reached this point.

 

But clearly for you it hasn't, and it is your plan, so I'll bow out the thread at this point and leave you to it. Good luck with the build anyway.

[cromptonnut]

I do know what you mean, it is very easy to think that you have the almost perfect plan, but keep tweaking and tweaking forever but never actually achieve anything.

 

It's not far off the "point of give up" if I can't crack it - but having been out at a family barbecue all day I haven't had a chance to do anything productive but I have been thinking (between cremated burgers) about some solutions, several of which involved possible solutions, one using a double slip instead of a pair of points, and two extending what would have been the second track through the station. As the second platform would now be derelict it would either be very overgrown, or removed leaving an earth embankment.

 

I would still value your opinion on my next plan adjustment Dave777, perhaps my issue was more that you were asking the questions I didn't want to address.

[MacRat]

Did you think of asymmetric platforms? Based on your original plan, maybe, the disused overgrown platform could be under the road bridge on the right hand side and the goods loop joins the main before the level crossing on the left hand side. For run round movements the level crossing could still be used. There could also be a rusty disused footbridge. The catch points in the loop were installed after the the second platform fell out of use. Attached should be a quick drawing to illustrate this.

[cromptonnut]

Hi MacRat, that's an interesting interpretation that I hadn't thought about before - I'll have a look and see how that might fit on my boards.

 

My only thought is that I need at least 18 inches beyond (or including I guess) the level crossing beyond the point if I'm going to have a loco run round and I don't know whether that might mean I then don't have enough space to fit everything else in - but then taking in aspects of yours and Dave777's idea of a road bridge truncating the platform it may not be a problem.

 

The alternative to the "dairy problem" is, of course, to have the bulk of the factory the other side of the truncating road bridge, and just have a couple of sidings coming through without it actually physically connected to the main lines in the viewable scenic section.

 

Stand clear, firing up xtrackcad...