LMS Branch Line Terminus Plan for Large Layout

[Pete the Elaner]

59 minutes ago, Harlequin said:

Robin's plan looks good but it's squashed into the space.

 

 

It does.

I have looked at Newport Pagnell which, for those unaware of it, was on a small branch from Wolverton. The line was 4 miles long with 2 intermediate stations, so single track all the way.

Newport Pagnell station had a goods yard beyond the passenger station. The platforms themselves held about 4 coaches, but fitting it onto a 15' layout in OO was about as small as I felt it could go without looking compressed, but you may feel it can be squeezed a little more.

There was a book about the branch with some useful photos. It will be out of print but you may be able to find a copy if the station has any potential for you.

[RobinofLoxley]

The plan is squashed, but I simply followed the original prospectus. To be honest I assumed that the OP couldn't find a satisfactory solution meeting his criteria, so it wasn't the moment to start offering alternatives.

 

To me it looks a lot of track for a single track branch terminus, so it needs a good cover story. The main temptation is to reduce by 1 track and use the space to have a wider platform, although that isn't required.

[The Nottingham Extension]

11 minutes ago, RobinofLoxley said:

The plan is squashed, but I simply followed the original prospectus. To be honest I assumed that the OP couldn't find a satisfactory solution meeting his criteria, so it wasn't the moment to start offering alternatives.

 

To me it looks a lot of track for a single track branch terminus, so it needs a good cover story. The main temptation is to reduce by 1 track and use the space to have a wider platform, although that isn't required.

I'd say of the desirable list the only mandatory things I want/need is a platform with a runaround loop and a small 8in engine shed as I've already built that. If cutting down the number of tracks will make it more realistic then that's probably a compromise worth taking. I definitely think that the board could be widened slightly by a couple of inches although obviously I don't want it to overbear the rest of the layout. I do have a few fatter station buildings from a previous project but assumed they would be two large to reuse although making the board wider and reducing track count could allow for them

[The Nottingham Extension]

Had a chance to fiddle around planning for the past hour and have something I am starting to like. The bottom left is a car park and I think the bay would be goods only although is just the one siding enough or is a second one justified? I would like to have a coal siding but struggling to fit it in and keep the simplicity and the operation prototypical. The biggest issue I have is the bottom right corner is very empty although I guess this leaves room for scenery? The scenic break on the right will be a short tunnel to keep this station separate from the halt which is only 6 or so feet down the line from this tunnel mouth! Thoughts? Are there any defining/glaring characteristics from the LNWR that have missed off as I'm aware this is quite a generic looking plan?

Edited April 10 by The Nottingham Extension
Coal siding comment added

[Flying Pig]

51 minutes ago, The Nottingham Extension said:

Had a chance to fiddle around planning for the past hour and have something I am starting to like. The bottom left is a car park and I think the bay would be goods only although is just the one siding enough or is a second one justified? I would like to have a coal siding but struggling to fit it in and keep the simplicity and the operation prototypical. The biggest issue I have is the bottom right corner is very empty although I guess this leaves room for scenery? The scenic break on the right will be a short tunnel to keep this station separate from the halt which is only 6 or so feet down the line from this tunnel mouth! Thoughts? Are there any defining/glaring characteristics from the LNWR that have missed off as I'm aware this is quite a generic looking plan?

 

Swing this back so that the station building is in low relief and put a low relief goods shed over the 'bay'.  Replace the shed point with a single slip and you can just about get a siding for coal and mileage traffic at the top of the plan, though you will need to imagine that cartage and coal stacking happens somewhere in the operator's midriff.

 

Could you bear to lose the shed and use the kickback as a private siding (more play value imo)?

[The Nottingham Extension]

Some more tweaking thanks to @Flying Pig I have replaced the shed's location with the coal staithes and having swung the plan to even more of an angle I have got room to get the goods shed and general goods siding in. There is also room for a level crossing to allow yard access. The shed has managed to survive by being flipped to the other direction. The station building has also survived low-relief-ing (is that a word?!)

 

Thoughts? Is it starting to get too busy again?

Edited April 10 by The Nottingham Extension
Forgot to attach image

[DCB]

[Flying Pig]

13 minutes ago, The Nottingham Extension said:

Some more tweaking thanks to @Flying Pig I have replaced the shed's location with the coal staithes and having swung the plan to even more of an angle I have got room to get the goods shed and general goods siding in. There is also room for a level crossing to allow yard access. The shed has managed to survive by being flipped to the other direction. The station building has also survived low-relief-ing (is that a word?!)

 

Thoughts? Is it starting to get too busy again?

 

In my opinion, yes.  That's not what I was thinking of at all, but unfortunately I don't have access to design software, so if you'll bear with a rough sketch, this is what I had in mind.  Note that fewer longer sidings are probably better than a lot of twigs and you don't need a dedicated siding for coal unless the coal traffic is very heavy (probably not at a small site like this).  

 

0

[The Nottingham Extension]

@Flying Pig Is this more what you were thinking of?

 

Yes I am loathe to use slips, if you couldn't tell! I have 2 double and 1 single on the main part of the layout and they are the usual cause for any sticking problems so eager to avoid them if at all possible

[Flying Pig]

17 minutes ago, The Nottingham Extension said:

@Flying Pig Is this more what you were thinking of?

 

Yes I am loathe to use slips, if you couldn't tell! I have 2 double and 1 single on the main part of the layout and they are the usual cause for any sticking problems so eager to avoid them if at all possible

 

Yes, that's it.  Can you avoid the bend in the loop at the siding point though?  It doesn't look too good and I can see it turning into a kink at the rail joint when you lay the track.  Perhaps you can curve the platform?

[brossard]

I note that in an earlier post, low relief industrial buildings were mentioned.  I've just been doing that on my 0 gauge BLT:

 

 

These are all from Scalescenes and cut back as needed.

 

From left to right:  T002b (Free) Low relief warehouse, modified, T024b Boilerhouse, T026a Factory Warehouse.

 

 

Between the water tower and creamery (also Scalescenes) is an ultralow relief T024c Workshop.

 

I have to do a lot of work for Scalescenes to work in 0 gauge.

 

My track plan for what it's worth:

 

 

John

[The Nottingham Extension]

23 minutes ago, Flying Pig said:

 

Yes, that's it.  Can you avoid the bend in the loop at the siding point though?  It doesn't look too good and I can see it turning into a kink at the rail joint when you lay the track.  Perhaps you can curve the platform?

Like that?

[The Nottingham Extension]

22 minutes ago, brossard said:

I note that in an earlier post, low relief industrial buildings were mentioned.  I've just been doing that on my 0 gauge BLT:

 

 

These are all from Scalescenes and cut back as needed.

 

From left to right:  T002b (Free) Low relief warehouse, modified, T024b Boilerhouse, T026a Factory Warehouse.

 

 

Between the water tower and creamery (also Scalescenes) is an ultralow relief T024c Workshop.

 

I have to do a lot of work for Scalescenes to work in 0 gauge.

 

My track plan for what it's worth:

 

 

John

Oh don't. Now you're making me want a creamery!

 

I have a few scalescenes kits already built (footbridge, overall roof, several station buildings, signal boxes, sheds etc.) and I agree they are fantastic and very customisable......definitely not now eyeing up the creamery kit......

[tractionman]

7 hours ago, Pete the Elaner said:

 

I have looked at Newport Pagnell which, for those unaware of it, was on a small branch from Wolverton. The line was 4 miles long with 2 intermediate stations, so single track all the way.

Newport Pagnell station had a goods yard beyond the passenger station. The platforms themselves held about 4 coaches, but fitting it onto a 15' layout in OO was about as small as I felt it could go without looking compressed, but you may feel it can be squeezed a little more.

There was a book about the branch with some useful photos. It will be out of print but you may be able to find a copy if the station has any potential for you.

 

 

that's a great prototype, ruralish LMS branchlines have a real charm, to me anyway!

 

some more detailed maps plus photos here--

 

http://www.disused-stations.org.uk/n/newport_pagnell/

[Harlequin]

You could make better use of the fillet and the full width of the main baseboard if you did something like this:

 

I've grabbed an extra 2in for baseboard width and used curved turnouts (green) to start the station pointwork in the curve.

The topmost siding is NOT a bay platform - it's small siding for the large factory building behind with a covered loading area.

The engine shed kicks back off the factory siding so that it can use up some of the space in the corner. I know that makes access to the shed a bit awkward but needs must and these little oddities did happen in the real world.

Two goods sidings with most of the yard surface and lorry access imagined to be in the operating well.

 

Edited April 10 by Harlequin

[Flying Pig]

@Harlequin's plan is a lot closer to what I was  If the extra two inches aren't available, it could be done with a single siding at the front and make the back siding the goods shed as I suggested.  Or put a loading bank next to the spur at the end of the loop with a lock-up shed.

 

I'm really not keen on the loco shed arrangement though as the engines will need to go right into the private siding to access it, which apart from anything else will be impossible with any wagons present.  The simplest solution is just to do without the shed: it isn't really needed on a short branch like this, close to civilisation, where it isn't that much of an issue to run the first train of the day as down empty stock. 

[The Nottingham Extension]

30 minutes ago, Harlequin said:

You could make better use of the fillet and the full width of the main baseboard if you did something like this:

 

I've grabbed an extra 2in for baseboard width and used curved turnouts (green) to start the station pointwork in the curve.

The topmost siding is NOT a bay platform - it's small siding for the large factory building behind with a covered loading area.

The engine shed kicks back off the factory siding so that it can use up some of the space in the corner. I know that makes access to the shed a bit awkward but needs must and these little oddities did happen in the real world.

Two goods sidings with most of the yard surface and lorry access imagined to be in the operating well.

 

Wow, that looks great. I wonder if there is a way to move the shed to more of a St. Ives position and come off the main route straight into the corner?

[The Nottingham Extension]

@Flying Pig@Harlequin What sort of industry would it be wise to have at the back? It's based in the midlands but all I know is that's a coal heavy area. As mentioned above, would a creamery be reasonable? I do have a few 6-wheel milk tankers

[Flying Pig]

You could employ the crossed sidings pattern, though it does involve a diamond and you may want to avoid that.  I was thinking of putting the shed behind the platform and the private siding in the corner, but of course it could be done the other way round.  Taking the siding off the platform road is perhaps not ideal, but the original layout used a Barry slip on the loop and a second diamond and was simplified by the LMS in an economy drive.

 

 

[DavidB-AU]

A suggestion is ditch the engine shed. It's taking up space that could be used for another industry and more likely than not the loco would live at the junction or other nearby major station. In the case of the Newport Pagnell example above, it was mostly worked by Bletchley locos. A branch line terminus probably only needs water at the end of the platform.

[DCB]

Does the spare 3" actually exist?   With Harlequins drawing twizzled round 180  to match the others  I counted room for 24 wagons  and an ability to run round 12.  Its a good plan but I fear translated from thin 2B (or not 2B) pencil line  to Streamline track on the board it will be cramped. My branch station "Ugleigh" is on an 18" X  7ft (usable) board and  with the same number of roads (remaining)  it looks cramped, and with an engine shed at the inside board edge it was awkward.   "Ugleigh"  has so far lost 3 sidings and an engine shed  in an effort to make it less "Ugly"     What "Ugleigh" has is well over 10 feet of main line to use for shunting, I think shunting would get tedious if less than 3 feet of extra main line was available  ( 5 feet beyond the points )

 

Edited April 11 by DCB

[The Nottingham Extension]

I think I will follow the general consensus to ditch the shed as I agree it isn't adding much but taking up a lot of space

[Harlequin]

I can apply a rails-and-sleepers brush to the centre lines to show something more realistic. I don't know whether it would look cramped or not but one goods siding could be removed - and the private siding too if required.

 

There might be a way to splay out the goods sidings a bit more, which would help with the cramped feeling. That's why I made the baseboard wider but in the end I didn't make best use of the extra width.

 

The platform shape was a quick knock-up and I can extend that a bit into the curves.

 

The engine shed isn't taking up room while it's in the corner, it's just difficult to connect it into the trackwork sensibly. A St Ives type solution would probably work best but if not then maybe it should be removed.

 

The big building at the back could be a dairy/creamery with the covered private siding used for filling milk tankers.

 

I'll adjust my drawing when I get time. Might have to wait until the weekend.

 

[Flying Pig]

Phil has achieved an attractive flow, which is a good foundation before we start debating the number of sidings. Here's the single siding version I mentioned above, in the variant with loading bank and keeping the  private siding.  This is a cramped site and the model is inevitably going to be more CJF than Pendon in style if operation is to be interesting, but I'm guessing that matches the approach of the rest of the layout. 

 

[tractionman]

looking good :-) I quite liked the kick back siding from the goods platform, fills that corner nicely?

 

plus I wonder too if there is scope for a double track entry, often branchline termini had a siding that paralelled the main running-in line?