Turnout arrangement

[Jabee]

Hi

I'm still 'learning my trade' as it were.....I've now worked out my fiddle yard arrangement with the curved entries/ turnouts with no less than R3 but now struggling with the tracks running into the yard at each end. 

Fiddle yard runs along one side of the room, approx 4 m long and is split into 12 tracks, arranged as 4 sets of 3 with a combination of streamline curved and medium radius turnouts in each fan.

I would be grateful for ideas for the most efficient turnout/slip design to allow any of the four scenic tracks having access to any of the four 'fans' at each end of the fiddle yard.

Thanks, in advance, once again.

John.

[Chimer]

Some variation on this I think ... medium radius points here.

 

Best of luck!

 

 

[Michael Hodgson]

would it not be more space efficient if the fans of three were all 3-way points?

 

If you stick 4 3-way points directly onto the end of the above, the divering roads will foul one another.  So you really want the above to lready be diverging.  F|or example the top left point could be a left hand point and the bottom left a tight hand point.

 

You really have to draw this up including the fans.  I would also suggest considering the use of curved points on the approach.

 

It is worth considering whether all of the loops need to be of the same length.  You might be ablle to get slightly great length if you don't have that as a requirement

[The Johnster]

3 hours ago, Chimer said:

Some variation on this I think ... medium radius points here.

 

Best of luck!

 

 

 

That loses you ten feet assuming that it is repeated at the other end of the fy.

 

Four tracks are usually arranged as up/down mains then up/down reliefs/slows/goods, or pair ups with the main on the inside and paired downs.  If your layout is based on the latter arrangement, it might be worth runnin the pairs into six fy roads each approached with a double slip, but if the former then it may be as well to go for four separate sets of three.  This would save you huge amounts of space and allow longer trains to be stored.  Shorter trains can share fy roads.

 

It depends how much you need to access all fy roads from all scenic running roads.  Don't forget any movement across the fy entrance throats will block movements on at least one and possibly all three of the others with conflicting moves, so now you've got an interlocking problem as well. 

 

Extra flexibility can be introduced with y points between the sets of three roads so that bi-directional trains, (800s, Pendolinos, HSTs, mulitple units, autos, push-pulls) can re-emerge from the fy in the correct new direction.  Shorter trains such as autos or dmus can be stabled in the corner areas.  There is no such thing as too much fiddle yard space, but remember to leave enough room between the roads to be able to easily handle the stock on or off the track.

[Chimer]

8 hours ago, Michael Hodgson said:

would it not be more space efficient if the fans of three were all 3-way points?

 

If you stick 4 3-way points directly onto the end of the above, the divering roads will foul one another.  So you really want the above to lready be diverging.  F|or example the top left point could be a left hand point and the bottom left a tight hand point.

 

You really have to draw this up including the fans.  I would also suggest considering the use of curved points on the approach.

 

It is worth considering whether all of the loops need to be of the same length.  You might be ablle to get slightly great length if you don't have that as a requirement

 

Yes, v1 was quick and dirty last night, switching the points as suggested obviously better when it comes to fitting in the fans ....

 

And I agree entirely with @The Johnster about whether all lines need to access all hidden siding loops - was just answering the question as asked!

 

Edited November 20, 2023 by Chimer

[RobinofLoxley]

I dont know why the OP started a second thread. Its clear that the answer to this question depends on the fiddle yard track proposal. Where is it?

[Harlequin]

This kind of pointwork is a very good reason for not having 4 running tracks - or not having an everything-joins-to-everything fiddleyard.

Some compromise will probably be needed.

 

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

10 hours ago, Michael Hodgson said:

...You really have to draw this up including the fans...

For maximum efficiency the 'splitting' of the scenic lines and the 'fanning' of the fiddle yard roads should be integrated.

 

But first, there's missing information about the four scenic lines, are they:

four independent two way operation single lines; 

three independent lines, one double track operated as 'up and down', and two independent two way operation single lines, and how these are arranged;

a pair of independent double track lines each operated as 'up and down lines';

a four track line, two up, two down and the arrangement, whether up slow, up fast, down fast, down slow, or US, DS, UF, DF or any other arrangement.

[Michael Hodgson]

59 minutes ago, Harlequin said:

This kind of pointwork is a very good reason for not having 4 running tracks - or not having an everything-joins-to-everything fiddleyard.

Some compromise will probably be needed.

 

That's up to the OP of course, it's his layout, and he may already be committed to some of the trackwork in his fiddle yard. 

However I agree I wouldn't do it like that - to say nothing of the cost (4 double slips plus 4 points at both ends, plus point motors if you want ease of operation).  I would be really surprised if full flexibility of all roads from all tracks at both ends is really jusitified.  I would have thought ability to switch between fast/slow

 

To work out the optimum, one would really want to know what pattern of trains is going to be normal, and that would depend on the rest of the layout, the types of train and whether it is paired by direction or two pairs of double track.

 

PS  I should have added, more storage space is available if loops (or most of them) are constrained as to direction; flexibility is probably only really needed at the departure end of the loops in each direction not at both ends.  If reversal is required, again probably only at one end.  But it depends on the rest of the layout.

Edited November 20, 2023 by Michael Hodgson

[DCB]

11 hours ago, Chimer said:

Some variation on this I think ... medium radius points here.

 

Best of luck!

 

I don't really see how this basic concept can be improved given we don't have the rest of the track plan to fit it to,  # Chimer has not gone to the board end with the points as if it is a module / for a portable layout so for a fixed installation it would be around 125mm  5" shorter .  If width is no object splay the  FY end tracks as per second post If this is the bottom part of  an oval and tracks curve upwards have this as the righthand side and a horizontal flip mirror image the other side to keep the inner loops as long as possible. If the top flip the previous vertically.       It may not be essential for all A end roads roads to have access to all B end roads,  If they are paired Up Down Main  Up Down relief for instance, but  if the main is the middle pair and relief the outer thats a different kettle of canaries.    It may need some discipline to achieve but two trains leaving or arriving or even 4 arriving and leaving at once would be spectacular.   The Great Central at Marylebone  and North British at Edinburgh Waverly for two often arranged for simultaneous departures largely (GC) or partly (NB) for effect.
This is something I have looked at innumerable times over the past 60 years or so and #Chimer's is about as good as it gets.   My big abandoned layout  had every train arrive back in its dedicated loop after a run whether clockwise or anticlockwise.   Run one arrival Train arrival big loco,  Run 2 ECS   Tank  followed by big loco.    #Chimer 's plan would work very well with a one train one siding approach, but withut knowing what theb rest of the OP's planned plan is I can't see how this concept can be improved as a concept

[Grovenor]

Network Rail at Fenchurch St use 5 scissors crossovers.

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/place/Fenchurch+Street+Station+(Cooper's+Row+entrance)/@51.5107384,-0.0711778,19z/data=!4m6!3m5!1s0x48760314ac9dc937:0x103634b8a3471789!8m2!3d51.5110539!4d-0.0771269!16s%2Fg%2F11k_4n7s5q?entry=ttu

(The lower two lines are the DLR)

Edited November 20, 2023 by Grovenor

[Jabee]

Thank you for replies so far - following from questions from some of you, I thought it might be useful to give the full picture. Bear with me as I will cover this in two posts

Part one - location/construction.

Firstly, location.  I have a converted loft space in a detached hipped roof house, insulated, boarded and plastered with structural steels in the floor and against roof cords to allow removal of some of the internal trussing (all building controlled, inspected and approved before anyone asks). Open space is per diagram but dimensions are approx 5m (N to S) x 4.1m (E to W) + storage spaces under the eaves. A larger space under the eaves is accessed from the North side from where I can get to bathroom extractors etc.  The fiddle yard is in the North end of the room with the Scenic break determined by some remaining trussing to support a front offshoot to the roof (it would have increased the cost of the conversion considerably to have this removed) Base boards are open frame construction (dimensions per diagram) with cabinets and a large fold down modelling table below, all on castors. The fiddle yard will be laid on braced ply boards mounted approx. 70mm above the datum which is the top of the open framing in the 'scenic' area, to facilitate some height variation between track and scenery.

I have opted for three running tracks - I know that is not 'usual' but I'll cover that in the next post.  I have not yet 'finalised' a track plan for the scenic area but have connected the circuits just for now.  My intention is to have a station area at the west entrance to the fiddle yard - this will not be full length platforms....there will be a structure over the platforms (station building?) at the scenic break suggesting the remaining platforms are 'off scene.  The ability to move from any of the three tracks into any of the storage lines will be 'disguised' as the pointwork south of the station.

Edited November 20, 2023 by Jabee

[Jabee]

Part 2 - myself

I'm a proficient scale modeller but I've never constructed a 'layout' before.  I am not a 'rivet counter' type and not necessarily motivated by prototypical running.  The real interest for me is in the modelling and the engineering. I have a large collection of locomotives rolling stock, some of which I've had for many years and I am in the process of re-working much of the older stuff - replacing wheels and bogies, changing couplings, repainting and replacing decals etc.

I also have young grandchildren and they like coming up in the room with me so keen to get some trains running sometime soon.

Part 3 - the layout

It will be constructed using Peco code 100 in the fiddle yard and Peco code 75 in the scenic area. Full DCC operation is the intention and may even get into computer control.  I have disposed of any locomotives I had that would not easily convert to DCC (or were not worth converting).  All remaining locomotives are DCC ready/converted and all have wheels compatible with code75 track - not a traction tyre or lightweight plastic chassis in sight.......but somehow I've still got 50+ locomotives and who knows what quantity of rolling stock!

It's taken me some time to get to grips with the fiddle yard so not much though yet on the scenic area.  I've settled for now on three tracks - up and down fast traffic and a bi-directional freight/slow line.  I know that is not usual but 4 lines feels a little too busy and I would like something more interesting than two lines.  Era is diesel/electric, anywhere from 60s up to more recently - again, I won't get hung up a over having a Deltic running a fast passenger train while a class 66 hauls a fuel train at the same time!

I will probably include a TMD or similar but this is more for the opportunity of modelling one rather than operating one - I don't see myself doing a great deal of prototypical operation (shunting etc)....more like fixed rakes relaying around the room while I work on models/scenery etc.  Hopefully it will also keep the grandchildren entertained. Any more questions, that will help give proper advice, then please ask.  I have included a larger scale picture of the west fiddle yard/station approach for additional clarity.

Thank you again, in advance

 

Edited November 20, 2023 by Jabee

[melmerby]

A 4x4 symmetrical layout at Fenchurch Street Station.

 

You could make it shorter by removing the gaps in the middle and have more double slips, see below

 

Here's a nice symmetrical 6 into 6, any track (OK there's a seventh bottom right)

All crossings are double slips

 

Ogilvie Transportation Centre Chicago (the old C&NW station)

 

Edited November 20, 2023 by melmerby

[Jabee]

I should maybe point out that the loft was not converted just for a model railway - this is a 'hobby room' .  I also build scale models to a high standard of detail - mostly ships from sail era through to WW2 - just winding up to build a large scale (1/100) model of HMS Victory.  Also, being a keen sea angler, I build fishing rods for myself and friends...hence all this, the large open space in the centre to pull out a large fold down modelling table and cabinets for tools, paints, glues, resins etc!!!

For anyone interested, latest work in progress below.

Edited November 20, 2023 by Jabee

[Chimer]

Using the points "south" of the station to allow you to access all FY roads from all running lines makes all three roads through the station bi-directional - this is not "unusual", it's impossible to even imagine!  It's your railway, but .... I'm sure with a minimum redesign, your 3 circuits could plausibly be made to look like a double-track main line and a single-track branch line diverging from the main as the tracks leave the station heading south.

[DCB]

I always associate three tracks with Thomas the Tank engine ( or the USA,).  There were instances on UK lines but none I know of with  the passenger lines on the outside and the bi directional in the middle.  Hatton Bank  on the GWR London Birmingham line had a length of three tracks, Up main Down main and down slow  and a number of 4 track lines have been reduced to three with an obvious gap where the former line had been but I don't know of any  bi directional except where a branch runs parallel to a double track line for a while like Andover to Red Post Junction.    There were three (and five) track sections with a separate goods line which operated as permissive block  where goods trains followed one another very closely   as they queued to enter a yard or be released  on to the main line,    Where there are three lines through a station between platforms the middle is either a  uni directional  through line or a Bi directional siding, the signalling for bi directional running was just too complicated  in semaphore days  when safety was king, less so today when cost saving is key.

[Harlequin]

@Jabee I may have missed something but I don't think you've said which of the three lines would be the main fast lines and which would be the relief line?

 

Having the third line bi-directional is very unusual in the real world, AFAIK, and will cause more problems on entry and exit to the fiddle yard.

 

I think you have the room to do 4 tracks all the way around, if you want, and then the running direction of each could be fixed, which would make the station and the FY easier to set out. The four tracks would be close through the station but could become separated, and even run at slightly different levels, to break down the impact in the countryside. The FY entry and exit could be made more manageable by limiting the connections between the running lines and the storage loops.

 

Have a look at "East Mumbleton" in my track plans album. That is a 4-track "race-course" for watching the trains run and repeatedly pass each other. It was made easier by not having a fiddle yard.

 

Edited November 20, 2023 by Harlequin

[RobinofLoxley]

Well now im a bit stumped as to what the question is. The last one related to four line circulation but now it seems there will be three.

 

On the previous thread im sure some ways to integrate crossings into the yard approach were mooted.

 

@Jabee none of this is actually laid yet, right?

 

I believe the suburban lines out of Melbourne are 3 line with a tidal flow central line

Edited November 20, 2023 by RobinofLoxley

[Michael Hodgson]

12 minutes ago, Harlequin said:

 

Having the third line bi-directional is very unusual in the real world, AFAIK, and will cause more problems on entry and exit to the fiddle yard.

 

 

Prototype for anything - if I remember correctly the line into Waterloo International was the former Up Windsor Local, which was converted to bi-di for the cross Channel trains, while all Up trains on the Windsor lines used the Up Windsor Fast.  Of course that's not a 4-track route, the Windsor lines are only half of an 8-track route.

[Jabee]

Thanks for replies so far....it seems that three tracks would not be the answer.  So my question now is, if I reverted to four tracks, how would you designate the lines (slow/fast, and north/south) and then how would you design the pointwork approach to the station from the South?

[tom s]

Fast lines will be the inside two that can run straight through your station, and direction is the same as a british road with trains running on the left pair of tracks from their perspective.

[Geep7]

7 minutes ago, tom s said:

Fast lines will be the inside two that can run straight through your station, and direction is the same as a british road with trains running on the left pair of tracks from their perspective.

Except on the Great Western Main Line, where they are paired by use.

[RobinofLoxley]

2 hours ago, Jabee said:

Thanks for replies so far....it seems that three tracks would not be the answer.  So my question now is, if I reverted to four tracks, how would you designate the lines (slow/fast, and north/south) and then how would you design the pointwork approach to the station from the South?

Except that the objections to three tracks are mainly that its not very prototypical. But then, how is the rest of the layout going to be?

 

Personally I find it difficult that with a large and well appointed space that its going to be dedicated to trains circulating endlessly while something else is done. Its an area that many modellers would be pleased to have.

[RobinofLoxley]

2 hours ago, Geep7 said:

Except on the Great Western Main Line, where they are paired by use.

Also WCML as far as Wolverton?