Improving something awful (TT120) - 5ft by 2.5ft

[Chimer]

5 hours ago, RobinofLoxley said:

Just for clarity @Chimer could you highlight which is the 'First' plan you are referring to, thanks. 

 

The Anyrail plan in the very first post in the thread.

[Chimer]

6 hours ago, moawkwrd said:

 

Thank you - I had similar thoughts yesterday after my last post when thinking about the track movements that could take place.

 

Can I clarify - do you mean the original Bredon plan or one of mine?

 

If mine - I think I can use both plans like so:

 

Does that work better operationally do you think? Might have to adapt a couple of the short straights for it to fit but that's no issue. I think the main fiddleyard sidings are just about the same length - 4 and a bit 16.6cm straights so could accommodate 3 coaches and an engine depending on the rolling stock with effectively a dead third siding in the top left for others locos etc. Could always replace the third radius curves with extra points if I needed more.

 

 

 

 

I was referencing your very first plan.  Your latest is definitely better operationally than yesterday's (imho).  You can't do a continuous run anti-clockwise, which might be a bit of a pain.  And a stub off the lower fiddleyard siding would be good .....

 

Fwiw, in my similar layout a pick-up freight spent most of it's life in what I thought of as the "goods loop" at the station, and could gently shunt the yard while passenger traffic continued back and forth via the platform road.  Occasionally it would depart, do a circuit or two and end up back in the loop to be resorted in accordance with the luck of a deal of cards.  Which is only really possible if the goods loop is on the same side as the yard.  You are very tight for space "north/south", so I don't know if this is an option for you, I haven't got TT track loaded to see what's possible.

 

I can see the attraction of having the double track to the right of the station, but suspect it's adding constraints that you might do better without.

Edited April 5 by Chimer

[moawkwrd]

9 hours ago, Chimer said:

 

I was referencing your very first plan.  Your latest is definitely better operationally than yesterday's (imho).  You can't do a continuous run anti-clockwise, which might be a bit of a pain.  And a stub off the lower fiddleyard siding would be good .....

 

Fwiw, in my similar layout a pick-up freight spent most of it's life in what I thought of as the "goods loop" at the station, and could gently shunt the yard while passenger traffic continued back and forth via the platform road.  Occasionally it would depart, do a circuit or two and end up back in the loop to be resorted in accordance with the luck of a deal of cards.  Which is only really possible if the goods loop is on the same side as the yard.  You are very tight for space "north/south", so I don't know if this is an option for you, I haven't got TT track loaded to see what's possible.

 

I can see the attraction of having the double track to the right of the station, but suspect it's adding constraints that you might do better without.

 

Thanks again

 

If I push out the track as far as I think it can go whilst still allowing for the tunnel mouths on either side, I think I could fit another set of points in the fiddleyard to allow anti-clockwise running. It does mean that siding is a bit shorter though so reduces my max train length.

 

 

There's also space for another point to add a spur on the inner fiddleyard siding. Perhaps wouldn't require that straight away but could be added later.

 

Sadly yes, I think with the above I'm already at the limits of my space. I had to get rid of the extra loop there from the original Bredon - I also wasn't totally sure on the purpose of that. I'll have a play around this weekend with the latest plan and the single line one as see how I feel about the twin track on the right. I take your point, but I feel like the original single track is perhaps too... symmetrical in the way a train set is if that makes sense? I like how Bredon appears to be a single track mainline joining with a branch line, or twin going down to single - it makes it feel like the station serves a purpose along a route, so taking that feature away I think results in a layout with less interest, even if it means there are operational impacts as a result.

Edited April 6 by moawkwrd

[Harlequin]

16 hours ago, moawkwrd said:

 

Thank you - I had similar thoughts yesterday after my last post when thinking about the track movements that could take place.

 

Can I clarify - do you mean the original Bredon plan or one of mine?

 

If mine - I think I can use both plans like so:

 

 

Does that work better operationally do you think? Might have to adapt a couple of the short straights for it to fit but that's no issue. I think the main fiddleyard sidings are just about the same length - 4 and a bit 16.6cm straights so could accommodate 3 coaches and an engine depending on the rolling stock with effectively a dead third siding in the top left for others locos etc. Could always replace the third radius curves with extra points if I needed more.

 

 

 

 

I think the goods yard is too fiddly - too many short sidings with unnatural wiggles to fit them in. The "bay" siding makes the main line platform shorter than it could be.

 

If the goods yard were just two or three long sidings it would be much more usable and more interesting to shunt.

 

@Chimer is right that the double track into the tunnel on the right is weird: The inner track is really a headshunt for the goods yard but it's connected to the FY. At a small station like this, as Chris has said above, it's unlikely that a headshunt would have been provided but sometimes they were and in the model it would allow you to shunt the yard while something circulates on the main line. So you can justify it but then it seems odd to build a double track tunnel to accommodate a headshunt. You could maybe say that it was originally double track and the line has since been singled and that side retained as a headshunt...?

 

But I agree with Chris that it would be simpler and more typical to keep it single track all round with no headshunt.

 

And the facing siding bottom left niggles me for the same reasons. It's not typical in the prototype and has to be specially justified.

 

Obviously you need to maximise the use of the space in this plan so you could:

• Where the end curves are hidden and the tunnel mouth is reasonably within the scenic area, move the curves as close to the edges as possible to maximise the length of the station and the FY.
• Add a thin extension to the front of the baseboard(s) to give you more options. You could place a platform (with station building) for the outside loop on it or use it to widen the oval or add a siding.

BTW: How are you going to get at the FY? The photo on the first page shows panels fixed to the back and sides of the baseboards.

 

Edited April 6 by Harlequin

[DavidB-AU]

7 minutes ago, Harlequin said:

 

@Chimer is right that the double track into the tunnel on the right is weird:

 

 

It makes more sense when you understand that Bredon is a junction.

[moawkwrd]

6 minutes ago, Harlequin said:

 

I think the goods yard is too fiddly - too many short sidings with unnatural wiggles to fit them in. The "bay" siding makes the main line platform shorter than it could be.

 

If the goods yard were just two or three long sidings it would be much more usable and more interesting to shunt.

 

@Chimer is right that the double track into the tunnel on the right is weird: The inner track is really a headshunt for the goods yard but it's connected to the FY. At a small station like this, as Chris has said above, it's unlikely that a headshunt would have been provided but sometimes they were and in the model it would allow you to shunt the yard while something circulates on the main line. So you can justify it but then it seems odd to build a double track tunnel to accommodate a headshunt. You could maybe say that it was originally double track and the line has since been singled and that side retained as a headshunt...?

 

But I agree with Chris that it would be simpler and more typical to keep it single track all round with no headshunt.

 

And the facing siding bottom left niggles me for the same reasons. It's not typical in the prototype and has to be specially justified.

 

Obviously you need to maximise the use of the space in this plan so you could:

• Where the end curves are hidden and the tunnel mouth is reasonably within the scenic area, move the curves as close to the edges as possible to maximise the length of the station and the FY.
• Add a thin extension to the front of the baseboard(s) to give you more options. You could place a platform (with station building) for the outside loop on it or use it to widen the oval or add a siding.

BTW: How are you going to get at the FY? The photo on the first page shows panels fixed to the back and sides of the baseboards.

 

 

Hi Phil,

 

Thank you - this is super helpful

 

I took the station/sidings layout straight from the Peco plan book but I see what you're saying about the bay platform being... too much. That's an easy fix I think - something like this instead?

 

 

Yes, as @DavidB-AU says this is following the original idea of Bredon as a junction station between a single track mainline and a branch line. I quite like the idea so wouldn't want to lose it unless it's completely compromising the layout.

 

In place of the bottom left siding - I could add a staggered platform there possibly instead. That'd make use of the footbridge I have from the first attempt.

 

I do have some hardboard left over - I think that would be sturdy enough with some reinforcement below and cork above to add a bit of extra width... I could fit a few extra inches at least but then I might be able to fit in 3rd radius instead if I do that. Hmm, will think on that.

 

Re the panelling and fiddleyard - I'll be repurposing most of that for the scenic break. I intend for the fiddleyard to be facing me with the scenic area facing away. I'm hoping in future I can move the layout to somewhere it can sit narrow side on so both long sides are accessible.

[Harlequin]

12 minutes ago, DavidB-AU said:

 

It makes more sense when you understand that Bredon is a junction.

 

3 minutes ago, moawkwrd said:

 

Yes, as @DavidB-AU says this is following the original idea of Bredon as a junction station between a single track mainline and a branch line. I quite like the idea so wouldn't want to lose it unless it's completely compromising the layout.

 

Ah, I see. Fair enough - and it makes more sense with the revised FY you show above.

 

3 minutes ago, moawkwrd said:

 

Re the panelling and fiddleyard - I'll be repurposing most of that for the scenic break. I intend for the fiddleyard to be facing me with the scenic area facing away. I'm hoping in future I can move the layout to somewhere it can sit narrow side on so both long sides are accessible.

Sounds good.

 

(The station looks a lot better without that bay!)

 

[Ravenser]

On 06/04/2024 at 09:50, moawkwrd said:

 

Hi Phil,

 

Thank you - this is super helpful

 

I took the station/sidings layout straight from the Peco plan book but I see what you're saying about the bay platform being... too much. That's an easy fix I think - something like this instead?

 

 

Yes, as @DavidB-AU says this is following the original idea of Bredon as a junction station between a single track mainline and a branch line. I quite like the idea so wouldn't want to lose it unless it's completely compromising the layout.

 

In place of the bottom left siding - I could add a staggered platform there possibly instead. That'd make use of the footbridge I have from the first attempt.

 

I do have some hardboard left over - I think that would be sturdy enough with some reinforcement below and cork above to add a bit of extra width... I could fit a few extra inches at least but then I might be able to fit in 3rd radius instead if I do that. Hmm, will think on that.

 

Re the panelling and fiddleyard - I'll be repurposing most of that for the scenic break. I intend for the fiddleyard to be facing me with the scenic area facing away. I'm hoping in future I can move the layout to somewhere it can sit narrow side on so both long sides are accessible.

 

I quite like the idea of double track on the side coming down to a single line on the left. I would see the justification for this as the station being the junction of two minor lines - the siding bottom left is  the stump of a former goods only line, now abandoned. The single line heads off into a tunnel - scenicly I'd develop this with a rock face runnung from the left side of the portal along the left edge of the board, and the stub siding ending in front of a bricked up tunnel mouth in it . This would work quite nicely

 

Operationally I would see this siding as a place where the bulk of a through freight could be dumped, along with the brake van , out fo the way of through traffic, while the J50 shunted the yard  

 

I would also "go with the flow" and set this as somewhere on an imaginary portion of the ex GN lines in West Yorkshire - classic territory for a J50. These were straggling steeply graded lines through the hills  that formed the second or third string route to various towns in the West Riding, and were getting run down and marginal by the 50s. (which is why Leeds- Bradford Interchange is the only bit of this network that survives..).  Queensbury lines

 

These included several routes from Wakefield to Bradford Exchange - and the interesting point is that commonly ECML trains to the West Riding divided at Wakefield Westgate, with a 3-4 coach portion going along these lines to Bradford Exchange. Post war a B1 or 2-6-4T seems to have been the usual motive power, but a Bradford portion is probably the most plausible excuse for a Gresley Pacific and 3-4 coaches, which could be Pullmans. Diversion of the expresses by a back route could explain a few things away...

 

I also think the bay platform could actually be used.. The idea of a shuttle service over the double track section which terminates in the bay  would allow some local services. True there are no DMUs or branch passenger stock available RTR in TT120 but the world of 3D printing may help you:   LNER Sentinel railcars  (most of his stuff is not available for 1/120 scale , but these are). I'm not swure how smooth the finish will be and Shapeways have their detractors, but it could well be worth a punt. It ought to be possible to source a 12mm gauge motor bogie from Halling to power it.

 

When no-one much is looking a timeslip could see the Bradford Executive diverted this way formed of an HST... and the Waterloo -Exeter routre was/is a mix of single and double so maybe a 50 might appear too...

 

Best of luck!

 

 

[moawkwrd]

On 16/04/2024 at 22:53, Ravenser said:

 

I quite like the idea of double track on the side coming down to a single line on the left. I would see the justification for this as the station being the junction of two minor lines - the siding bottom left is  the stump of a former goods only line, now abandoned. The single line heads off into a tunnel - scenicly I'd develop this with a rock face runnung from the left side of the portal along the left edge of the board, and the stub siding ending in front of a bricked up tunnel mouth in it . This would work quite nicely

 

Operationally I would see this siding as a place where the bulk of a through freight could be dumped, along with the brake van , out fo the way of through traffic, while the J50 shunted the yard  

 

I would also "go with the flow" and set this as somewhere on an imaginary portion of the ex GN lines in West Yorkshire - classic territory for a J50. These were straggling steeply graded lines through the hills  that formed the second or third string route to various towns in the West Riding, and were getting run down and marginal by the 50s. (which is why Leeds- Bradford Interchange is the only bit of this network that survives..).  Queensbury lines

 

These included several routes from Wakefield to Bradford Exchange - and the interesting point is that commonly ECML trains to the West Riding divided at Wakefield Westgate, with a 3-4 coach portion going along these lines to Bradford Exchange. Post war a B1 or 2-6-4T seems to have been the usual motive power, but a Bradford portion is probably the most plausible excuse for a Gresley Pacific and 3-4 coaches, which could be Pullmans. Diversion of the expresses by a back route could explain a few things away...

 

I also think the bay platform could actually be used.. The idea of a shuttle service over the double track section which terminates in the bay  would allow some local services. True there are no DMUs or branch passenger stock available RTR in TT120 but the world of 3D printing may help you:   LNER Sentinel railcars  (most of his stuff is not available for 1/120 scale , but these are). I'm not swure how smooth the finish will be and Shapeways have their detractors, but it could well be worth a punt. It ought to be possible to source a 12mm gauge motor bogie from Halling to power it.

 

When no-one much is looking a timeslip could see the Bradford Executive diverted this way formed of an HST... and the Waterloo -Exeter routre was/is a mix of single and double so maybe a 50 might appear too...

 

Best of luck!

 

 

 

Couldn't see a way to like your reply - but thank you, this is super useful.

 

Operationally that's what I was thinking as well - I'm going to stick a small building by that siding too so there's a reason for freight to be dropped off their as well as moving back to the yard. Arguably curved points on the bends would work cleaner for this but at least it means there's an excuse for the J50 to run through the station then onto the outer line and then back in again to access the yard so lots to keep me busy when running trains.

 

Re DMUs, that's my reasoning for having another platformed siding of at least 2 straights so that eventually a 2 car DMU can be accommodated there, as well as for goods trains dropping off platformed freight, parcels etc before moving to the other sidings.

[moawkwrd]

Thinking about signalling for the layout -

 

Would I be right in thinking that only a home signal on the left and a junction signal at the end of the platform are really required (for anti-clockwise running) for this plan? I assume the rest of the points would have ground signals instead for shunting moves, all controlled by the signal box since it has a good view of everything from the bottom right.

 

For clockwise, would it be plausible that the home signal for the main line is before the tunnel rather than immediately after it before the point? Then another home can sit on the left hand side opposite the end of the platform.

 

For the branchline 1 or 2 home signals and ground signals seems sufficient.

 

I know on the original Bredon there was quite a lot of signals in both directions which looked a bit too busy to me.