Final 3

[barney121e]

Hi All

 

So returning to start my layout and been looking into plans as only have a 6ft by 4ft space. After lots of looking, laying it out to see how it looks etc have come down to the three plans attached. Plan 1 is one i have seen on youtube which i love, plan 2 is a Hornby plan for a branch line and plan 3 is based on Crianlarich, but can be used for any similar scottish lines. Now this will be my only layout and will be DC. Plan 1 uses 1st and 2nd radius curves which nearly all my stock go around, plans 2 and 3 are both 2nd radius curves. Plan 1 does give 2 trains running at same time but the other plans do give me a branch line single track feel which works for me as well. 

Just wondering what others think, have I missed anything? 

[The Johnster]

Unless two trains running at the same time is a core requirement, I'd abandon plan 1 if you are intending to use current production RTR, much of which doesn't like R1.  A single track with passing loop is more operationonally interesting anyway.  Check out 'Bredon' before you commit, though with a Scottish Highlands bias I understand the attraction for the wide island platform of plan 3.  The front sidings arrangement is better on plan 2, with a reverse curve eliminated at the yard entrance and a more open, flowing 'feel'.  Might be better to curve the sidings around with the running line, you'll get a few wagon lengths more out of them and the 'mountain backdrop/shores of the loch' nature of many Scottish-based layouts provides a rationale for it.  Maybe a straight road along the bottom leading out over the water on to a pier for fish traffic, Clyde paddle steamer, or the odd puffer.

 

Extra operating interest (if you feel the need) could be had from a kickback road into a distillery or fish shed off the headshunt, perhaps a sawmill; traffic for this would require running around in the platform to get the loco on the right end, and something to shunt with a Ruston 48DS or an Andrew Barclay* in the quiet periods between the otherwise separated action of a passing station on a single track main line.  I'm a little worried about your fiddle yard/hidden area; access to it will be difficult it the layout is to fit into a corner at even one end.  Two feet, 30" tops, is a practical limit for reaching and handling stock.  Assuming there is good access, the fy can be extended with sidings off the loop at the top; the layout can then handle four trains on the track, which is pretty good going for a 6x4, and enough for a Highlands line.

 

Assuming the inner sidings to be a goods yard, angle the lower road to parallel the running line, which will allow room for a goods shed and for lorries to turn between that and the rear road, which will be the mileage and coal road.

 

 

*other diminutive suitable traction is available.

Edited February 6 by The Johnster

[barney121e]

23 minutes ago, The Johnster said:

Unless two trains running at the same time is a core requirement, I'd abandon plan 1 if you are intending to use current production RTR, much of which doesn't like R1.  A single track with passing loop is more operationonally interesting anyway.  Check out 'Bredon' before you commit, though with a Scottish Highlands bias I understand the attraction for the wide island platform of plan 3.  The front sidings arrangement is better on plan 2, with a reverse curve eliminated at the yard entrance and a more open, flowing 'feel'.  Might be better to curve the sidings around with the running line, you'll get a few wagon lengths more out of them and the 'mountain backdrop/shores of the loch' nature of many Scottish-based layouts provides a rationale for it.  Maybe a straight road along the bottom leading out over the water on to a pier for fish traffic, Clyde paddle steamer, or the odd puffer.

 

Extra operating interest (if you feel the need) could be had from a kickback road into a distillery or fish shed off the headshunt, perhaps a sawmill; traffic for this would require running around in the platform to get the loco on the right end, and something to shunt with a Ruston 48DS or an Andrew Barclay* in the quiet periods between the otherwise separated action of a passing station on a single track main line.  I'm a little worried about your fiddle yard/hidden area; access to it will be difficult it the layout is to fit into a corner at even one end.  Two feet, 30" tops, is a practical limit for reaching and handling stock.  Assuming there is good access, the fy can be extended with sidings off the loop at the top; the layout can then handle four trains on the track, which is pretty good going for a 6x4, and enough for a Highlands line.

 

Assuming the inner sidings to be a goods yard, angle the lower road to parallel the running line, which will allow room for a goods shed and for lorries to turn between that and the rear road, which will be the mileage and coal road.

 

 

*other diminutive suitable traction is available.

 

Thanks for the reply. I only have older RTR stock which i think all handles R1 curve hence the reason plan 1 was a possible. 

 

With reference to your preferred plan 2. When you mention a straight road, do you mean literally a road, a a rail line? I was thinking of a having an engine shed in the bottom right hand corner, do you think something else would work there? The inner sidings i hadn't really thought about as would have the station that side of the track so adjusting the lines could impact space available. Have attached an amended plan which i think is what you mean.

 

 

[The Johnster]

Getting there.  Yes, I meant 'road' in the railway sense, a track running out on to a pier low enough for a puffer's derrick to unload on to at high tide.  I was advocating plan 3 with some of the features of plan 2 to 'look Scottish' and eliminate a reverse curve (along with my own suggested extras) so I think the island platform not only fits the scenario better, but also saves space, and adds interest with either a footbridge access or a foot crossing. 

 

Small goods yards at passing stations very commonly had two roads (in the railway sense), with a minumum of 18 feet between them, that being the turning circle of a horse-drawn 4-wheeled road (in the road sense) wagon; the famous 3-wheeler Scammel replicated this which is why it was called a 'mechanical horse'.  Even if you have to compromise on this dimension, space between diverging roads (in the railway sense) will improve the overall look of your goods yard.  Road (in the road sense) vehicles can be loaded from the goods shed platform or, more cheaply, directly from the railway wagons on the 'mileage' siding. 

 

To explain; when railways were built, a condition of their authorising Acts of Parliament was that they would be 'common carriers' obliged to accept any type of load  Freight had to be carried at a set rate per mile, mileage rate, and initially one penny per mile.  The railway only provided the wagons for this, and the freight was loaded and unloaded by the sender and the reciever or their employees.  The railways did not make a lot of money on this deal, and  vigorously promoted premium services.  A goods depot shed allowed loading and unloading to take place under cover, but the work was done by railway staff, the goods being 'TBCF' (To Be Called For) by the recipient at the depot having been brought to the originating depot by the sender. Further premiums were charged for collection and delivery in railway road (in the road sense), express, and services using specialist vehicles such as shocvans, insulated/refrigerated, and door-to-door containers.  End-loading docks and craneage were supplied, as were livestock-handling facilities.

 

Mineral traffic, household coal at a small goods yard like this, was handled for many years in wagons not owned by the railway (the NER and LYR being exceptions), but by collieries, leasing agents, large companies such as steelworks, or local coal merchants; this is the basis of the many private owner liveries these wagons carried.  To allow running on main line railways, they had to be built to Railway Clearing House* specification.  They were pooled in 1936, all wagons being used everywhere, and it was around this time that the first 16ton capacity steel wagons appeared on the LMS.  A development of this type was the most-built BR wagon.  Household coal was unloaded on the mileage road either directly on to local merchants' flatbed lorries after being weighed into bags, or stored in the familiar wooden 'staithes' enclosures.  The NER and LYR used coal 'drops' that the wagons could discharge into from bottom hoppers.

 

These were the reason for goods yards having at least two roads spaced 18feet apart.  Beeching managed to get the common carrier requirement for mileage traffic provision and parliamentary set charges abolished in 1963 amongst many other things, following which many local goods yards either closed, with the traffic being handled at large central hub depots, or put to other uses, but the gap between the two roads (in the railway sense) remained where the yards were not converted to car parks.

[barney121e]

@The Johnster okay some of that makes sense, so swap the front area of plan 3 for plan 2 I understand.

 

The other suggestions aren't totally clear to me but is late and brain has had enough for today  so will revisit tomorrow night.

[barney121e]

@The Johnster

 

So have come up with plan below, is this more of what you had in mind? What would you put in inner circle, the goods yard or an engine shed? Would you use outer sidings for shunting?

Any help much appreciated

 

 

Edited February 7 by barney121e

[The Johnster]

That’s it, except that the goods yard sidings should angle away from each other; remember those horse-drawn carts?  Personally, I’d prefer a goods facility or something that generates traffic and hence shunting movements to a loco shed, which will either be empty all day while it’s residents are out earning their keep or contain locos not doing anything; the whole concept does nothing to enable the space, severely limited on a 6x4, to enhance the layout or it’s operating potential. 
 

In any case, the loco facilities on a single-track main line in sparsely-populated terrain are more likely to be strategically situated at the terminus or the route’s junction with the rest of the network than at a passing station somewhere in between.  What a place like this will almost certainly have, though, is water, in a header tank for the station and from a crane for the locos.  
 

A distillery loco may have a small shed of course, on the distillery’s premises. 

 

 

Edited February 7 by The Johnster

[DCB]

Looking good.  BUT you need a hacksaw, cutting Disc or specialist rail cutter to cut some of the set track to length to make it happen.    Having done that I would lengthen the top loop  (Which would need a long straight trimming to slightly longer than a short one at the top)  and maybe take the lower sidings off nearer the left end,  left hand point or curved.     You could splay the sidings as The Johnster suggests  or alternatively squeeze them together as sometimes instead of a cart size gap between two sidings there was access from both sides.  The 60mm set track spacing  falls between two stools  Widest 00 RTR is  40mm so 45mm gap is do able but means sawing points and curves while wide spacing needs a very short straight.
Station buildings can look daft on small layouts.  I would put the booking office waiting room etc away from the platform with a footbridge and also a barrow crossing for the disabled trolleys etc and a canopy over the platform.  Chelenham Malvern Road had this   Newton Abbott still has this and Corwen(?)  being built by the LLangollen railway is similar 

[barney121e]

Thanks @DCB

 

That all makes sense. I think with my small space I need to make a list of what I want most to least and then go from there. 

[RobinofLoxley]

Just as a minor point i doubt that the trouble at A mentioned above wont be resolved in the way suggested. The straight has to be cut.

 

Optimising inevitably will require some use of flexitrack in my opinion

Edited February 8 by RobinofLoxley

[barney121e]

2 hours ago, RobinofLoxley said:

Just as a minor point i doubt that the trouble at A mentioned above wont be resolved in the way suggested.

 

Optimising inevitably will require some use of flexitrack in my opinion

Thanks. Flexi track is possible, got a few lengths of it but prefer to use set track curves and then Flexi on straight bits if needed.

[RobinofLoxley]

4 hours ago, barney121e said:

Thanks. Flexi track is possible, got a few lengths of it but prefer to use set track curves and then Flexi on straight bits if needed.

A number of occasions I have advocated setrack curves for confined spaces, so much easier to lay. I have a dumbbell shape layout and both ends are done with many setrack curves.

 

However the track spacing can be an issue depending what other track is being used. On the suggestion below I managed to use all Streamline turnouts without causing any spacing issues. This plan was edited from another similar situation, the idea is to provide real shunting possibilities not simply some spurs that arent that useful. There is a single R1 curve that I can probably get rid of. Most of the flexi sections are siding ends where the curves arent critical. The Streamline turnouts are a lot easier to negotiate than setrack ones, although as there arent any paired turnouts on the latest version, it's may not be an issue anyway.

[DCB]

I mix Streamline code 100  flexi and points with set track all the time.   Often  using set track where the track needs to be straight  and for sharpish curves to stop them kinking and flexi when a nice smooth curve is needed.       You can slide off flexi rail chairs and slide them on to nice rigid set track rails  if you pry the fishplate off and remove any residual "Pip"   A rail cutter, pliers, hacksaw, cutting disc etc and a file to true the end up will cut the rails to length and you can get the non standard "Set track" bits you need,   I also treat set tracklike flexi by cutting the links between sleepers and bending set track curve to sharper or usually larger radius I have even done that to the old steel set track and Hornby system 6.   I cut set track  points and live frog them and reduce the  track spacing.  as it makes small layouts look much larger if not overdone so passing trains actually collide.    My latest layout actually has 12" radius flexi curves and is only just over 2ft wide by 6ft long inspired by one they used to have at Bekra Model Railways at Newton Abbott.  I would like to say it only has small locos but a Triang Princess 4-6-2  can get round