Inglebourne.

[Stubby47]

A couple of points - would the cattle dock be beyond the goods shed ? It would mean animals could be left in wagons awaiti g unloading or once loaded, whilst goods movements were taking place in the shed.

Also, the kick back siding to the coaling stage means a 3 change of direction for an incoming loco to be coaled.

You could change the coal siding for cattle, and put the coal beyond the goods shed, and lose the engine kickback, putting the coal stage on the engine shed road. The water tower is in the same place as the one at Bodmin.

HTH

Stu

[N15class]

 It was getting lost in the. If only we had a bigger garden with room for a large shed, or my personal favourite an old railway carriage.

 

 

That would be good but our plot is not 70 feet long.

[Kev_Lewis]

Thanks for your very helpful comments Stu.

 

I've been pondering some more. One of the things on my plan that I was never quite happy with was the shunting required to form up a goods train. So after trawling through my books, I've come up with this:

 

 

The engine shed has gone again, although there may possibly be room to squeeze it back in. But I do like how open the station end of the layout will now be. The goods yard is loosely based on Highworth and I hope will make for some good shunting.

[N15class]

Why not join your goods shed line onto the loop and move the cattle dock there. It then means your head shunt is clear. and the goods shed can be accessed either end.

 

I would also make the platform run up to the double slip, I feel this will make look better

[Stubby47]

The signal box might be better further left, so the tokens can be exchanged on the single line.

[Kev_Lewis]

The signal box might be better further left, so the tokens can be exchanged on the single line.

 

Well spotted. Easily fixed.

 

Why not join your goods shed line onto the loop and move the cattle dock there. It then means your head shunt is clear. and the goods shed can be accessed either end.

 

I would also make the platform run up to the double slip, I feel this will make look better

 

I don't really need the platform to be any longer as I don't expect to be running anything longer than two coaches and a van or two.

 

Joining the goods shed up to the runaround could make things interesting, although I may have gotten carried away below:

 

[N15class]

My thoughts on the longer platform where, even if using short trains they look more realistic in platform that is longer than the train.

 

Example Swanage, I thing the platforms will take a West Country class and 6 or 7 coaches. When it was open what went there normally 2 coaches and a tank. Or a 2 car DMU.

[Stubby47]

If you move the point to the right of the goods shed further right along the loop, you'd have more room in the shed loop for waiting / processed vans.

[Kev_Lewis]

My thoughts on the longer platform where, even if using short trains they look more realistic in platform that is longer than the train.

 

Example Swanage, I thing the platforms will take a West Country class and 6 or 7 coaches. When it was open what went there normally 2 coaches and a tank. Or a 2 car DMU.

 

Ah, but the loop will only take two coaches and a couple of vans. Wouldn't a longer platform be out of proportion?

 

If you move the point to the right of the goods shed further right along the loop, you'd have more room in the shed loop for waiting / processed vans.

 

Good idea, but it would leave me with a nasty kink in the good shed road.

[N15class]

I don't think so, this is just my own view, I think model stations look funny if they are only as long as the train. I am looking at much the same thing when I get on with mine, I will be looking at trains no more than 54" long 2 coaches and a tender loco, but want to make the platforms 72" if I can. I expect the trains will actually be a tank and 2 coaches.

 

Looking at your design is the platform long enough for the carriages to be in the centre of the loop and still be on the platform? For me it looks like if the 2 coaches are on the platform they would be on the run round loop.

 

Mind you I am getting ideas for myself from what you are doing here.

[Stubby47]

The loop at Shepherds was much longer than the trains that used the line, but one of the photos of a train at the platform suggests the platform is exactly the same length as the three coaches.

 

Travelling from Truro to Plymouth on an 8 coach HST (Class 43), there were several stations where some of the coaches weren't 'platformed' ( obvoiusly 'to platform' is a verb in railway-speak).

[N15class]

The loop at Shepherds was much longer than the trains that used the line, but one of the photos of a train at the platform suggests the platform is exactly the same length as the three coaches.

 

Travelling from Truro to Plymouth on an 8 coach HST (Class 43), there were several stations where some of the coaches weren't 'platformed' ( obvoiusly 'to platform' is a verb in railway-speak).

Very true but the exception rather than the rule. I just feel in model form it is nice to see some platform either end of the train.

[TheGhostofNigelGresley]

I think I preferred where we were in post 21 Kev.

 

Yes, the cattle dock could be swapped around so that the cattle are unloaded before the goods shed (or removed entirely if you like) but I think it flows much better than the current situation.

 

Just my thoughts.

[Kev_Lewis]

I think I preferred where we were in post 21 Kev.

 

Yes, the cattle dock could be swapped around so that the cattle are unloaded before the goods shed (or removed entirely if you like) but I think it flows much better than the current situation.

 

Just my thoughts.

 

Thanks for your input Chris. I've only just got my head around how to shunt the goods yard on the plan in post #21.

 

The cattle dock could go up on the loco release, as it was at both Malmesbury and Highworth. It would then only be used when a livestock train was running.

[Kev_Lewis]

Very true but the exception rather than the rule. I just feel in model form it is nice to see some platform either end of the train.

 

I think I won't commit myself to a set length of platform at the moment. Once the track is laid I can use some card mock ups to see what looks best.

[TheGhostofNigelGresley]

The cattle dock could go up on the loco release, as it was at both Malmesbury and Highworth.

 

Staying with post 21, you have the space, so you could lay another line and take the cattle dock around the goods shed, sort of like this ?

 

 

South Brent, Devon, GWR circa 1910 - photo credit to John Law

 

That way it doesn't cramp your right hand side and the extra line would surely come in handy for your shunting puzzle ?

[Kev_Lewis]

Great photo there Chris. I really like the long livestock train.

 

There's certainly room for the classic GWR "back" siding, which would increase the potential for shunting no end.

 

 

I've just got to work out where would be the best place for the cattle dock.

 

Pin the cattle dock on the goods yard anyone?

[Kev_Lewis]

Right, well, layout construction has yet to commence because I'm still fiddling with the track plan.

 

This is my current way of thinking. Any comments would be greatly appreciated.

 

[TheGhostofNigelGresley]

Looks pretty good, certainly a lot going on.

 

Two things leap out at me - it's a shame that a lot of that pointwork/slip is situated right on a baseboard join and you might be in danger of running out of room at the right, have you considered flaring the baseboard there to give yourself a bit more room - no-one says we have to have perfectly linear baseboards.....

[hartleymartin]

It seems to me that double-slip with the point leading to the platform road is redundant. You merely need replace the double slop with a left-hand point for access to the goods yard.

[Kev_Lewis]

Looks pretty good, certainly a lot going on.

 

Two things leap out at me - it's a shame that a lot of that pointwork/slip is situated right on a baseboard join and you might be in danger of running out of room at the right, have you considered flaring the baseboard there to give yourself a bit more room - no-one says we have to have perfectly linear baseboards.....

The pointwork and double slip are either side of the baseboard join, with the sections of flexitrack between them actually crossing the join, All the point motors will be well clear of the join too.

 

I quite like the loco release running along the edge of the baseboard. The lane and the scenic triangle behind the station, which could possibly be a good location for the stationmasters house, should give a nice feeling of depth.

 

It seems to me that double-slip with the point leading to the platform road is redundant. You merely need replace the double slop with a left-hand point for access to the goods yard.

The double slip (probably only really a single slip needed, but Peco don't make one) is there to give better access to the goods yard. Otherwise lots of messy shunting back into the fiddle yard would be required.

[Kev_Lewis]

I should also point out that the loop and platform length also allow for passenger services of up to five carriages to be run.

[hartleymartin]

It would definitely make more sense if that double-slip were a single-slip instead. I thought that Peco had introduced one for their O scale line of track!

[Kev_Lewis]

I've just had a look on a few websites, it appears that they're still only making the double slip and long crossing.

 

Marcway do a 72" radius single slip, which is the same radius as the Peco DS, but I'd need to order their templates to find out how it compares length wise.

[3 link]

Evening Kev,

 

Honestly with your modelling skills you should have a go with C&L , better looking, tailor made to fit, flowing trackwork and cheaper to.

 

If I can build it ( and enjoy doing it ) you would have no problems, and we are all here to help.

 

Martyn.