Planning a German-style layout

[Howzthat]

Hello, another newbie.  I'm planning something similar but in N gauge.  Prototype - fictional branch line terminus in Austria/Germany early 1970s.  Baseboard 4ft x 15ins (1220mm x 380mm) flat top.

I've looked at 'Minories' and also CF's PSL plans but can't seem to find anything suitable.  Minories is a city terminus. I would like something equally elegant but scaled down. 

 

Perhaps Dodarcombe Spa would fit the bill.  I've little knowledge of actual railway 'workings' but it seems to have the potential for the later addition of a main line by adding a second baseboard to allow fiddle yards at both ends. I've no idea if Dodarcombe Spa would be protoypically correct for Austria/Germany and maybe that's unimportant.  

 

I'd be grateful for advice. Thanks!

 

John 

[Alastair-I]

I have looked at Germanizing Dodarcombe Spa (for Magic Train 0e - the station area needs some work for what I want).  But you should also look at Minimax, some of Loisl's (Rudolf Merz) plans and MIBA back issues.

 

From memory, there was a MIBA article on Neustadt Hellersdorf that made a nice branchline terminus.  I'll try and find the article.

[Alastair-I]

It would help if I remembered the name correctly.. it's Neustadt Gillersdorf, and the article is in MIBA Special Issue 59 which looked specifically at shunting/goods themes.

 

 

If you want to start with a terminus, you could close the line to Grossbreitenbach and have Nuestadt Gillersdorf as a terminus.  If you then want to expand, you reinstate this line to your second fiddleyard.

 

Alternatively, work the line from Grossbreitenbach and put your headshunt under the bridge.  Flip the glassworks vertically, and have your fiddleyard represent the rest of the world and the glassworks.  Although you'll lose the sexy double-slip in doing so.  From memory (it's a while since I last fully read the article, and it takes me a long time to read in German) the normal practice was to work goods non-stop to Grossbreitenbach and then work Nuestadt-Gillersdorf on the return.

 

Operationally, you've trains coming and going with goods to/from the glassworks that drop their wagons on track 2 for the works shunter to collect.  The loading street is dominated by timber traffic.  I'm not sure when the passenger service closed, but you could have a terminating passenger service .  By the early 1990s the goods traffic was being served by 228 diesels (V 180).

 

 

As we've wandered away from the OP's topic, perhaps a kindly moderator could split off these three posts an put them in the relevant section (either German Railways or Layout Planning).
 

[Howzthat]

Many thanks, Alastair-1, and apologies, mod, for wandering off topic. 

 

This is a neat set up which would lend itself very nicely to what I have in mind.  I wouldn't mind losing the double-slip for my first effort - in the interests of keeping it simple.  I've a lot to learn about track laying, wiring, and control not to mention real world railway operations. 

So, I would certainly omit the glassworks and I would run a double track main line from Grossbreitenbach, temporarily terminating at Neustadt-Gillersdorf due to track repairs...

 

I'll try to track down the actual article.  Thanks again!

 

John

[Alastair-I]

The thread has been split to avoid taking the original thread off on a tangent..

 

 

The closest German practice example to Dodarcombe Spa I can find is Markt Oberstdorf, southwest of Muenchen in the Bavarian Alps.

 

 

No complicated point work with this one, two three-ways for the main drag and the only fiddly bit is the lead off to the loco shed and facilities.  It's a single track branch again though.  it could be expanded in the future by taking the centre road through and out the other end.

 

Why do you specifically want a double-track branchline?  As soon as you double the branch you need to start thinking about expanding the passenger and/or goods facilities to maintain the legend.

[David C]

Its a long time since I modelled German and Austrian railways, so Alistair-l's posts above will be more up to date than my thoughts. I did however travel quite extensively in both those countries in the 1970s and 1980s. The main thing to remember is that track design, particularly before many stations were rationalised in the 1980s and 90s, is very different to the way stations were laid out in the UK. Almost all stations consisted of loops with only a very few sidings or short spurs off. In Austria particularly (but also in Germany), the loop nearest the station building was actually a goods loop and was not used for passenger trains. Passengers had to walk over this to reach their trains. The station building was usually adjacent to the goods shed, if not actually attached to it. More commonly in Germany, the goods loop was offset to one side. There were often no platforms as such, merely banked gravel where passenger trains stopped.

 

If you are interested, I can probably dig out some prototype plans for various BLTs I visited - its just a case of finding my notes in the garage!

 

David C

[Sir Madog]

Just as food for thought - here is a web page with a number of interesting layout suggestions following German prototype:

 

Lokalbahn-Reminiszenzen

 

The pages are in German, but the pictures are international...

 

Enjoy!

[Howzthat]

Thanks to all.  This info is all very helpful - I'd like the layout/workings to be reasonably authentic and Markt Obertsdorf might fit the bill very nicely.  

 

Thanks for the link, Sir Madog.  Great stuff!  

 

John 

[Alastair-I]

This article is worth a quick read on the subject http://www.modeltrainsinternational.co.uk/nebenbahn.php

[bbishop]

Very good article and the plan of Stadtlaurigen is typical of many Bavarian endstations. I'm using a very similar plan for my O gauge (Spur Null) layout, which I'm calling Höchstädt.

 

Bill

[Alastair-I]

I've been thinking about this one a bit more, you're looking for something similar to what I'm looking for - although I'm looking for 0e rather than HO.  Taking the Markt Obertsdorf plan, I've flipped it a couple of times and swapped the station about..

 

 

You could easily flip it left-for-right if required, but now the loco shed and facilities not only balance the station visually, but they also provide a scenic break to hide the exit to the fiddle yard.  The loco coal and water could go between the tracks, that might also help with the visual distraction to conceal the exit.
 

[Howzthat]

This is based on Alastair-I's plan for Markt Obertsdorf - mine will be Era III (1945-1970).  I couldn't resist adding a second branch line past the coal stores - it's not prototypical - is this wise or should I stick to the original station plan?

This branch would be mainly for a diesel railcar service but it could be used occasionally for goods traffic.  It would add interest maybe, but as a very inexperienced modeller it might not work well in practice.  I just don't know. 

 

Based on David C's post about passenger services, I added a turnout to take the railcar track into the centre track.  If I've got it right, the passengers would disembark here and cross the goods rails to reach the station. 

 

I'd welcome advice.  Thanks!

 

 

[Alastair-I]

I didn't realise the 4ft x 15ins had to include the fiddle yard, from your initial description I thought the fiddle yard could be an extra board or cassette.  That's looking very tight, and I don't personally think the extra branch line looks right or adds much operationally. 

 

You can get just about away with the headshunt on the centre track being only long enough for the loco, but ideally it needs to be L+1W (loco plus one wagons) to serve the coal store without really awkward shunting.  It looks like you've used LH-RH points, where using two three-way points will give you a little more space for the headshunt and/or the loop.

 

Take each section and measure it in operational terms, i.e. headshunts measured in L+xW (i.e. how many wagons in addition to a loco), and the loops measured as W and C (wagon and coach lengths).  If your fiddle yard is L+5W, then you need the centre road between the three-ways to hold 5W clear of the points (capacity greater then the fiddle yard is largely wasted in minimum space layouts).

 

Knowing your traffic flows will also help.

 

Goods road - closed vans, parcels, etc. to the shed attached to the station.  The siding near the station should hold 2W clear of the points so as not to interfere with other movements.  At the other end of this road, the siding with the loading gauge is a handy space just to hold wagons, a length of 2W or 3W is probably about right (see operational challenge below).

 

Centre road - L+1W would be the minimum operational length of the headshunt.  The loop should hold just as many wagons clear of the points as the fiddle yard can hold in a train.  This is the receiving road, and the road used by passenger services.  I have seen photos of small branch stations being served by a loco hauled passenger service, with a train as short as loco plus one double-decker driving coach operating as push-pull, as a suggestion of something different from a railbus.

 

Ramp road - the left hand siding serving the ramp should be 2-3W clear of the points, traffic from the ramp could be timber or stone for example.  The loop length isn't critical and will be governed by the centre road arrangements.  The siding serving the coal store should hold 2W clear of the points.  Sidings running outside the loco shed often seem to be used for maintenance.

 

 

Assuming your fiddle yard holds L+5W.  A goods train comes in with L+5W, it also has 5W to pick-up (it's a busy day).  There are 3 loaded timber W on the ramp, 1 van on the goods siding near the station and an empty coal W on the coal siding.  You've just brought in 2 vans for the station, a van for the store and two full coal W.  Can you hold L+10W on the layout and have operational space to shunt?  To add some excitement, the rail car is coming in with a passenger service, so can you hold L +10W clear of the centre road with the crossing from the station to the centre road clear for passengers to reach the railbus?

 

It could be a fun little layout with some operational challenges, even without the second branchline.

[Howzthat]

Thanks for all this, Alastair-I, it's kind of you to take so much trouble. 

 

I'm working in N scale and thought I had left enough room on all the headshunts allowing around 6 inches for a loco.  Unfortunately, Peco only make an asymmetric three way turnout - and it's in Code 55 Streamline.  It is possible, according to Peco, to use N scale Code 55 Streamline with N scale Code 80 Set-Track but I don't want to go there! 

 

The more I think more about the operational side the more I am coming to the conclusion that the layout is too tight for space. To make it work, even without the second branch line, I would have to bring the layout  to the very front edge of the baseboard. Only by doing that could I provide enough space in the fiddle yard.  I would then be left with a very large area of vacant ground behind and the whole thing would become unbalanced. 

 

I need to think again and either add another baseboard, or use a simpler plan.

 

I'm very grateful for your advice, Al. 

 

John