Track Plan Ideas Please

[Barry M]

I have taken out 2 turnouts in the lower entry to the Main Line Terminus as they were just repeating what the double slip was doing.

 

One thing is bugging me. The exit from the goods yard is also the entry.....shouldn't there be some way over to the inner loop? In other words, goods only have one way in or out.

 

Any suggestions please? Or is the setup ok as is?

 

Joseph - taken your idea on board, I am looking at some similar plans online.

 

Thanks all.

 

Barry

[Barry M]

OK, I have now added 2 turnouts, so exit from the goods yard to the inner loop is achievable via the double slip.

 

Any views?

 

Thanks.

 

Barry

[Joseph_Pestell]

Custom was a bit slow on Sunday afternoon (too hot for people to want to drink wine) so I doodled this on a scrap of paper. Hope the scan is clear enough.

[Joseph_Pestell]

As someone who is rather limited by space and therefore has to use N if I want a decently complicated layout, I can see potential for adjusting this plan to make quite an impressive layout on an 8' x 4' board. The continuous loop could go right round the outside of the board with one or two through stations or a decent goods yard.

[Nick Holliday]

With all this talk about introducing a colliery where the fiddle yard was shown, I can only ask the question again; how are you going to actually operate your layout?  Having said you will be generally on your own, this means that to operate either the colliery or BLT or the fiddle yard, you will have to be inside the well, yet the majority of the facilities are located outside this, which will mean constantly ducking in and out.  Neither the colliery nor the BLT really function on their own, requiring some form of running to the main station, hence the need to be always on the move. 

 

As someone else suggested earlier, I would be inclined to bring the fiddle yard out into the open – I can envisage a range of high level coach sidings replacing the BLT, providing the height element, and increasing the amount of movements, with tank locos drawing the empty coaches out of the MLT and taking them for a run round to the sidings, where they can be stored in view until required for another service, when the process can be reversed.  I suspect that you have, or shortly will have, an excess of locomotives, which will allow one or two to be dedicated to this area of operation.  I would also think having a dedicated station pilot would be a good idea, as that would dispense with the absolute need to have run-round facilities in the main platforms.

 

I must admit that when I first read this post I imagined sweeping curves in a rural location, but the latest comments, such as mentioning the colliery, would seem to imply a more urban environment might be of interest, hence the coach sidings could be supported by retaining walls for at least part of their length. 

 

I am not sure why there is a need for a turntable in the MPD, unless you have one already.  The presence of a triangle will allow the easy turning of locos, without the expense, and was a fairly common occurrence on the real thing.  Although I would agree that maintenance access to the MPD may be difficult, perhaps one has to ask if this is going to be too much of a problem, especially if there is no turntable, since most movements will be at slow speed and mainly individual locos, and I would hope the risk of derailment would be minimal, although it might be necessary to consider a way to kick-start recalcitrant locos, should that necessary.

 

I feel losing one of the platforms on the MLT would considerably detract from its impact.  I would also see whether it is possible to maintain double track access to and from both of the central platforms.  I think the best thing about this scheme is the operational variety, in which I can see the arrival of “express” trains in the arrival platform, with a second large engine backing down to take the train on the rest of its journey being a key element, against a back-drop of trains circulating on the through line, and local trains shuttling in and out of the outer platforms.  I have to admit that reducing the approach lines to single track would save on pointwork, but would also look a bit out of place on a steam era layout.

 

As others have noted, the space available is going to make a meaningful fiddle yard difficult to fit in.  The idea of visible carriage sidings helps in this respect, allowing a simplified solution to be adopted. If you split each track into two with perhaps another line between, connected to both, this would allow two or three trains to be held in these sidings, giving the opportunity to change the sequence of trains.  Perhaps, given the implication that goods traffic is of less interest, judging by the limited goods yard, two long goods trains, one for each direction, could be held in the FY, to be taken round the circuit to provide a bit of relief from the passenger traffic.  The central bi-directional line could be used to reverse suitable trains, to vary the pattern, such as a DMU or push-pull train.  This simple arrangement would mean that, apart from mishaps, no access would be required during normal services.

 

The BLT still seems to me to be an after-thought, and hard to justify visually, unless very obviously meant to belong to a rival company, which might justify having two stations in close proximity, although this doesn’t really fit in with a service between the two.  Operationally the BLT is not going to match the MLT, and the capacity looks limited, although you have increased the potential by extending the length of the run-round to perhaps accommodate a couple of coaches.  In addition it seems to take up more space than it deserves, limiting the room for the mainline.  I know this is one of your desired features, but I feel it is detracting from the main scheme, and it’s the tail wagging the dog.  The main station will give you bucket loads of operational interest, and as the sole operator, you are going to have your hands full just with that section. If you actually prefer the idea of a branch line terminus, then I would suggest abandoning the grand idea and using the same space for the BLT on its own, allowing the creation of a more realistic effect.

 

Again, I am not sure about the benefits of adding the colliery, at least at this stage.  Although it could be seen to be generating additional traffic, none of it would be handled at the MLT, so you would need extra fiddle yard sidings to cater for empty and full wagons.  However, as a scenic addition it might work, being far more justifiable than the BLT.

 

I would simplify the goods yard for the MLT, removing the kick-back siding which will be awkward to shunt, whilst not contributing a lot.  A three siding inglenook style yard would provide plenty of shunting interest, but there needs to be a run round arrangement nearby to actually allow the incoming train engine to be released, although, again, the station pilot could be used.  Obviously access to the goods yard is going to be confined to trains approaching from the bottom chord initially, but that will just make for more interesting shunting to get a train ready to leave and travel in a clockwise direction.  There also needs to be a good headshunt to allow shunting to take place without impinging on the main line, and there may be enough space to allow an additional siding or two, which could be used for storage of stock.

The plan outlines my thoughts, although I have to apologise for the clumsiness of the draughtsmanship: I have to make do with PowerPoint, not having got the hang of the track drawing software.  As such I am not entirely sure whether my arrangements of double slips would actually work, especially using proprietary pointwork, and it might be necessary to adapt this slightly, using normal turnouts, with perhaps a crossover in the main line outside the triangle to get trains travelling on the right track.

 

With the arrangement shown trains from the south can arrive in platforms 1 and 2, and leave from 1, 2 and 3, whilst trains from the north can use platforms 2, 3 and 4 for both arrivals and departures.

 

Sorry to have gone on for so long, but I believe this is an exciting opportunity to create an interesting layout, and it would be a pity to overlook its full potential.

 

 

[Barry M]

Nick, Thank you for taking the time to post such a detailed and well thought plan. There's a lot there for me to take in...However, my initial reactions are:

 

I like the idea of double mainlines into the station.

Yes, forgetting the colliery for now!

The removal of the TT makes sense.

 

Q. Instead of the carriage sidings, what if I move the BLT to the south and position it running east to west (where you have those 2 turnouts at the moment). The incline would still only be around 1:48 so should be fine. Also, the positioned at the bottom will give the impression that it is removed from the MLT. I could then use the area you have the carriage sidings at the moment for a townscape, separating MLT and BLT even more?

 

While you ponder that, I'll go and arrange some double main lines......

 

Thank you again.

 

Barry

 

[Nick Holliday]

Barry,

It's up to you.  I only suggested the carriage sidings because it is going to be difficult to have more than a couple of passenger trains stored in the hidden sidings and I suspect that you will have more carriages to play with than that, and there isn't much space for carriage sidings at the MLT, although I have run a possible siding parallel to the goods headshunt, and if you can find more space, you could add one or two more to increase your capacity, behind the door.  At least by moving the BLT you may be able to operate it from the main area - perhaps you could extend it to where the door is shown.

[Satan's Goldfish]

Just a thought, and i'm sorry if it's already been covered (I admit i'm being to lazy to read it all!) but i'm guessing the BLT would have some small freight handling going on as well as passenger services. Referencing to Nick's plan 3 posts above, where the goods yard is beside the MLT at the moment, is it going to be a little awkward to get freight trains from the MLT goods yard to the BLT? Currently they would have to do a loop of the mainline then a reversal from platform 4.

 

In a similar vein, it's very easy to visualize passenger services leaving the MLT and doing loops in either direction of the main line, but all goods traffic has to arrive or leave via the south, what's the action plan for freight from the north?

 

Space looks a little cramped for it here, but what would probably work quite well here is the old approaches for norwich thorpe junction for goods and passenger from the crown-point track 'triangle'.

 

http://www.signalbox.org/diagrams.php?id=503

 

http://www.signalbox.org/diagrams.php?selectpg=Great+Eastern&viewpg=Go%21

 

 

HTH

[Flying Pig]

As such I am not entirely sure whether my arrangements of double slips would actually work, especially using proprietary pointwork, and it might be necessary to adapt this slightly, using normal turnouts, with perhaps a crossover in the main line outside the triangle to get trains travelling on the right track.

I like your idea Nick, but IMO it is indeed over-optimistic. The problem isn't just the slips, but the length of a double junction when using Peco pointwork. BTW I notice that Barry's diagram somehow fits a short diamond into the top right vertex of the triangle: this just won't go, unless you swap the points for small Y's which have twice the usual crossing angle but rather sharp curves for the main line. Or of course, you could go for one of the setrack systems. Or handbuild the track which would probably raise all sorts of exciting possiblities.

 

Anyway, this is the best I could do with Peco Streamline in Anyrail. It's based somewhat on Southport and you'll see that there's no branch at all: this is partly because I don't think the layout needs one and partly because I couldn't find a way to fit one in. The extra junctions required were just too much and IMO a branch springing from a bay platform with no main line connection at all doesn't look right (I'm sure prototypes could be found though!). As it is, the curves on the main line are tighter than I'd like (overall minimum radius is 24"). Apart from slips and curved points, pointwork is Peco medium.

 

The goods yard junction looks complex, but actually piggy backs on the trailing crossover using a single slip (both slips are single and trailing to the normal direction of traffic - slip roads marked red in the diagram).

 

My concern with what I've managed to come up with is lack of siding space. I haven't been able to find room for carriage sidings in the station area (at Southport they're mostly inside the triangle); neither is there really room for fiddle yard pointwork at the back. Perhaps the main line would work best as a folded figure eight, with storage at low level below the triangle and operable from the main well?

 

[Satan's Goldfish]

If you're still after ideas and going back to basics for a second with the triangular junction, i thought i'd quickly draw up this:

 

 

Using the Peco medium radius stuff takes up a lot of space and doesn't change angles much, Peco small radius 'Y' points are too tight. I've always been a bit of a supporter of the Hornby 'Y' which is a tiny bit longer and has less angle than the Peco stream-line small Y. The apperance and space saved is ver obvious in the drawing. The Hornby 'Y's are joined to Hornby crossovers to maintain the same track work angles. It removes the double/single slip option but i had a quick check and the radius from 'South' heading to the MLT is very similar to Peco Streamline curved points. There's slightly wider than prototypical track spacing with the Hornby stuff, but if you're feeling adventurous you could carefully cut off a little bit of track off the ends of the points and crossings to bring them closer together.

 

HTH

[Barry M]

Sorry for the delay in replying.

 

Firstly thank you for taking the time to set out your ideas for me like this.

 

I have slept on this for several days.

 

When my last layout was dismantled, everything was sold when the children came along. So effectively, I have a fresh start.

 

Nick's post especially got me thinking.

 

How am I going to operate the layout?

 

Inspiration, that's the key.

As I live not too far away, the Lickey Incline has always been a big draw. Now I have the chance with the space to model 'Bromsgrove South, Bromsgrove and the start to the Lickey Incline'.

It would be using DCC at it's best - lots of double heading and apart from the banker shunting, there are through express passenger and goods trains.

There is even a small goods shed.

 

However, to fit it in - it will have to be N Gauge!

 

I already have some prototype track plans and I have ordered some more. So it's back to the drawing board.

I'll post my first track plan soon I hope!

 

Thanks again all.

 

Barry

[Barry M]

New Thread: http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/75362-bromsgrove-1958-1965/

 

Barry M.

[ColinK]

Thanks to everyone for their contributions to this. Once the house is decorated I'll have a railway room fairly similar in size, but less constrained (door is in bottonm left corner). You've given me some good ideas for my railway.

 

A comment re the branch line terminus; for myself it would just be a single track terminating in a platform - no points, but fine for a dmu.

Instead of the fiddle yard, I would have a loop off each mainline, so freights can be held while passenger trains go past.

I really like the idea of the triangle; but might simplyfy it by having single tracks into the terminus. Could be an interesting wiring challenge, even for DCC?

[Twright]

Hi

 

Sorry if this has already been mentioned but, for a main line terminus the goods yard facilities seem a bit small for the town that they serve and only fairly small trains can be accommodated. The design for the BLT has almost the same sized facilities and that serves a much smaller town so I would advise enlarging them.