6x2' engine shed track layout/Revised Terminal branchline - comments and suggested improvements?

[Crumplezone]

Hello gents,

I'm working on a layout potentially based around a engine shed attached to a terminal station, it has most of the facilities required to service steam locos and a turn table to turn medium to 9F sized locos. However I'm wondering if I'm cramming to much in or weather the track is to complex?

Here is a image taken from SCARM:

The engine shed near the turnable is for a station pilot or tank loco but could be done away with for a coal stage or the small siding removed alltogether.

I do wonder if I am cramming to much in, but it seems to fit from measurements I've taken of buildings and what the kits say they measure out to.

The layout will be run on DCC so isolation tracks are not nessessary and its not particularly based around any real life area but the loco fleet is a mix of br GWR, BR ex-LMS locos and standard designs with biggest being a 9F which will be a visiting loco or maybe a specials hauler. The run off on the right side has room for a 4x2 space which I was originally thinking as a fiddle yard but could be changed to something else if suggestions are appropriate.

For simplicity purposes Hornby parts have been used on SCARM but I have a mix of Bachmann, peco and Hornby track on the track box and 6 lengths of flex track ready to use aswell.

Ideas I'm considering is removing the turnable from the plan entirely and swapping the 2 road engine shed to that side and making where the two road engine shed currently on the plan into sidings for wagon storage but not sure as of yet.

Any suggestions for improvement, removal of track etc or a complete redraw witha different setup will be welcome but one stipulation is the track needs to run off the board on the right side since the left side not enough clearance. The station is also not a mainline but a medium sized terminal which is to be constructed from a country station kit from metcalfe so ideally I want to work around that.

[jon_1066]

The top platform is pointless - you literally cannot fit a train in next to it.

 

There is no headshunt or trap to protect the running line(s) from the MPD

 

The only access to the turntable is from the engine shed.  You have space to put a headshunt where the engine shed is and put the engine shed on the other side up and left from the turntable.

[jon_1066]

Here is a suggestion:

 

 

It has a headshunt for the MPD so locos coming onto the shed can proceed through it in an orderly fashion.  Into the headshunt then coal, de-ash, water turned then onto shed or straight out again.  Locos can go directly to the shed (with inspection pits) or use the turntable without going thorough the whole sequence.

 

This also gives you a three coach train in platform 2.  I have shown the Gresley suburbans as they are shorter than Mk1s or similar.

[Crumplezone]

Thank you, I quite like the look of that preposal and its actually I would consider "less cluttered" in one respect compared to my design I had popped together and it looks like more scenic content could be added.

I did have a look at changing a few bits around and did create the following in SCARM:



But I do suspect the design you have put together has a better flow to it getting locos off shed and onto the turntable and such and gives abit more scenic area to work with around the yard area. Coaching stock wise I've 2x mk1s in SK and BG with a Restaurant car for maybe a sunday special, otherwise mostly just the two mark 1s with a Jinty/Pannier or the 2-6-0 standard 4 will be working passenger. I have mostly 0-6-0s and 2x 2-6-0s with the 9F being the biggest loco, I feel I may have been going for the "show everything possible" but not taking the whole "less is more" tactic.

I would be interested to see what you think about the above image, but otherwise I may adopt the plan you have suggested as I have most of the track in the plan bar the turntable which is currently on order.

[jon_1066]

I think that is a step in the wrong direction - try counting how many moves a loco would require to get on and off shed.

[Crumplezone]

Ah I see what you mean by that, honestly it didn't click at first then I realised when you said that and its abit of a boo boo on my part since everything on the railway  revolved around efficiency andcost. If I look at my own design there is atleast 8 steps of going back and forward going coal, water, inspection/ashpit, cleaning at engine shed then moving off into the station.

While your design if we talk about engine coming from shed requires about 4-5: engine -> turntable ->  turntable to coaling/water -> headshunt -> move out of depot and onto the mainline for station duty or just head up the mainline for freight duty.

Always useful to have another eyes on the situation, I think its a trap we fall into when layout designing in that we seem to think we have everything looking fine but when someone else points out a few obvious points then you "oh yeah, I see what you mean".

Thank you, this has been quite useful insight, I will be going with your design for a more rational engine shed setup with a terminal station able to take two trains and still be adequately supported by a engine shed scene.

If you still have it, would you be able to pm me a download link for the saved plan? I'd like to print it out 1:1 scale and use as a template.

[TonyMay]

1. Why do you need a station AND an MPD AND a goods yard?  Having all of these means that you have 3 design elements, which end up competing for space and compromising the others.  The most compromised is the "goods yard", which is just a joke even by model railway standards in which tiny bolt-on goods yards are unfortunately all too standard.

 

In particular, the size of the MPD shown is much greater than that which would be needed for a branch line terminus, which is all you have room for in the station part of the trackplan.

 

The suggestion would be to consider dropping one or the other.  Either do a BLT with room for a decent sized goods yard, or do an MPD with the main lines off-stage.  By not running trains several coaches long, but only loco-length cassettes, can you squeeze out a bit more scenery space?

 

Ask yourself, do I really need a turntable?

 

Where is the layout to be viewed from?  Where is it operated from?  This is important to get things' positions balanced (basically you don't want big stuff at the front obscuring the view of other stuff at the back, you want the big stuff at the back).

 

Better too not to have everything running in parallel with the edge of the baseboard.  

 

Try to use Streamline points if possible (there is room).

 

Do you have any particular company that you want to follow?  From the locos you mention it does seem to come down to GWR, Midland or LNWR?  Different companies tended to lay out their MPDs differently, and for BLTs you have different station architecture.

 

Mk1s wouldn't have been used much on branchlines as older stock tended to be cascaded downwards onto branchlines and they wouldn't have run a buffet car for branchline customers.

[Crumplezone]

1. Why do you need a station AND an MPD AND a goods yard?  Having all of these means that you have 3 design elements, which end up competing for space and compromising the others.  The most compromised is the "goods yard", which is just a joke even by model railway standards in which tiny bolt-on goods yards are unfortunately all too standard.

 

In particular, the size of the MPD shown is much greater than that which would be needed for a branch line terminus, which is all you have room for in the station part of the trackplan.

 

The suggestion would be to consider dropping one or the other.  Either do a BLT with room for a decent sized goods yard, or do an MPD with the main lines off-stage.  By not running trains several coaches long, but only loco-length cassettes, can you squeeze out a bit more scenery space?

 

Ask yourself, do I really need a turntable?

 

Where is the layout to be viewed from?  Where is it operated from?  This is important to get things' positions balanced (basically you don't want big stuff at the front obscuring the view of other stuff at the back, you want the big stuff at the back).

 

Better too not to have everything running in parallel with the edge of the baseboard.  

 

Try to use Streamline points if possible (there is room).

 

Do you have any particular company that you want to follow?  From the locos you mention it does seem to come down to GWR, Midland or LNWR?  Different companies tended to lay out their MPDs differently, and for BLTs you have different station architecture.

 

Mk1s wouldn't have been used much on branchlines as older stock tended to be cascaded downwards onto branchlines and they wouldn't have run a buffet car for branchline customers.

I have mulled over it after Jon sent me the SCARM file for his version and I felt it was a ideal choice but I have gone over recently some reading from Hornby Magazine's Design Manual they released just a short while ago.

 

While reading through a fair bit and brushing up on what is ideal (its been over 15 years since I last did model railways) I came across their section upon "operation build it" which last year was a introductory plan and setup for starting out for beginners and people like myself who are returning and have DCC in mind.

 

To that extent I looked at the questions you asked me and I pondered to myself weather this or that should be here or not. The question of "do I need a turntable?" stood out as I've not actually got one yet and planning on how to tackle fitting it made me dread it somewhat and going back to the idea of a offboard or even a scenic break and opposite side being a engine shed seemed better suited than rather trying to cram a station and engine shed together.

 

I have realised I had not mentioned in previous post to much about the additional 4x2 section which would bolt onto the 6x2 which makes up 10x2 in length total. I am going to do a scenic break where the trains dissapear either into a tunnel or bridge and come out the opposite side onto the 4x2. I haven't decided if this section would be a 3-4 track fiddle yard or just a small engine shed to give a secondary operational area.

 

This is what I've "culled" down to:

 

 

It is quite similar to operation build it! and its been slightly altered to add a single engine shed aswell just to allow a tank or medium size tender loco to sit and simmer.

 

Layout purpose/theme/operation?

 

Well the layout is just a personal thing it won't be touring or anything and theme in my head is a mixed region area where you might see GWR and midland steam locos in BR guise with a southern interloper (which would be my Q1), I'm not restricting myself to a specific real life location as I feel for myself that would be to much of a limitation upon my own skills and also as I generally use Metcalfe card kits I'm not particularly going to be able to create accurate to real life buildings but rather "it looks like somewhere in the railways".

 

I intend to operate the layout from the lower right so I would be able to see along the layout across the left side and unless there is a derailment I  should be able to not clash with scenery while dealing with such a event.

 

I know strictly branchlines wouldn't have got a RMB or mark 1s, but as I'm not to fussed on creating 100% real life duplication but instead a model railway which possibly looks like somewhere in the UK back in steam days  and don't intend to take to shows I feel I can be abit liberal with what I would like to run on it. I am keeping myself restricted to red brick buildings so if anything I'll be trying to theme around that.

 

The upper sidings on the picture I'm mulling over extending maybe a couple of more inches using the flex track I have but that corner maybe better suited to filling out with abit of scenic area.

 

I think this is abit more rational and looks and will operate abit more smoothly aswell as be interesting to work with to.

[bennyboy]

I'd say that's a much better design, but if you swapped the coal staithes and engine shed then you could have a longer headshunt and run round loop for the platform. Also have you thought about adding a bay platform on the lower side of the station as it would add extra siding capacity with needing much extra width.

[Crumplezone]

Swapping the engine shed with the coal staithes is a fairly good idea and looks ok loose on the board at the moment. The headshunt is a double straight in length so it is actually long enough to even hold my 9F so I don't think currently it needs to be longer that that at the moment as most of the other locos I have are much shorter.

The run around loop gains about I would say 4.5inches more of space with the adjustment you suggested and I'm going to pass on the bay platform due to wanting to set the country station I built abit further back off the platform and create some ramps up to the back doors with cobble so would need the space what a bay platform would take up on the board.

Its abit small scale train consist loads but you can fit a 2-6-0 and 2 mk 1s in the station loop or a 0-6-0 pannier/Jinty 2 mk1s and a goods van on the back. It also allows for a 5 wagon + brake van setup with loco to.

From what I can see of the track down loose on the board there is a fair bit more scenic area capable of being done and abit more wagon movement, I think it should allow for some interesting operation scope and should space become available in the future it would be easy to make it a through station. and join it to a larger track plan.
 

[TonyMay]

I think reducing the shed to a reasonable size is a good idea.

 

What you have now is the classic BLT.  But there's a reason why BLTs are popular (reasonably compact with only 1 fiddle yard, reasonable variety of operations).

 

Would reiterate the point about trying to make the layout flow a bit more by varying the angles and using flexi-track; and use streamline points if you can which aren't that much bigger than set-track ones and allow for a little more space laterally.  You can probably use medium ones for the mainline and small ones for the goods yard.  Peco track is better than Hornby.

 

the kick-back to the "factory" might not be the best idea, as it won't be the easiest to shunt with an engine (normally shunting would have been done by horse).  It's not usually a great idea to try to fill the entire layout with track and having some space for scenery, hoses, etc, should be considered instead even if they are "only" metcalfe kits.  The consequence of having a station throat is that there is naturally a neck of track.

[Crumplezone]

The only issue for me currently with changing to the peco points is cost and wiring knowledge for DCC but mostly  the cost as it would mean buying them new and I already currently have the Hornby pointwork. I may consider changing to them, but have to weight up just how much it would cost to replace things.

[DCB]

The Hornby / set track points waste a lot of width compared to Peco streamline, a "2ft" radius streamline point is no longer than a set track point but the track spacing almost allows 3 tracks in the space of set track's 2 and looks vastly better.

The massive 75ft Turntable also gobbled space in the early scheme.

There is a presumption that because a service would have a 2 mk 1 coaches that the platforms should accomodate 2 X mk1s, this is a fallacy, platform lengths were largely aspirational and based on what the railway company, often a small locally financed line, thought would be required, hence many termimni had 8 coach platforms for 2 coach trains, some had 5 platforms and seldom saw two trains at any one time.

 

Many termini were designed to be through stations originally,Fairford for instance, and the GWR liked to outstation an engine at the branch terminus and often provided an engine shed, this was because passenger traffic was generally from terminus to junction in the morning and from junction to terminus at the end of the day. A big engine shed at a branch terminus was just about unheard of, it made no sense, but Yeovil town on the branch from Yeovil junction managed to have one, though it was a terminus which looked like a junction station.

 

I would definitely either bin the Hornby points or take a hacksaw to them to reduce the track spacing and lengthen the run round to the maximum, yo can use the fiddle yard for a headshunt, the real railways used the main line as a shunting neck and I would angle the platform across the Baseboard

[TonyMay]

And don't overlook that Horny points are deadfrog points which isn't ideal for DCC.

 

Here's a quick draft to illustrate what I mean by flow.  3 sidings, 1 engine shed, 1 platform roughly as before. I haven't drawn the buildings:

 

[TonyMay]

Here's another version using fewer turnouts (4 instead of 6).  I noticed that you had quite a bit of width but not so much length.  Therefore I put the station throat off-scene using the fiddle yard traverser.  There would be a road covering the exit at the RH end of the layout and I envision the station building being here too with steps leading down (possibly the Bachmann GCR ones).

 

As before, 3 sidings, engine shed, single platform.

 

[jon_1066]

Ultimately whatever you do it will not be prototypical since your length is too short for even the most basic real world railway infrastructure.

 

Other options to consider:

 

Keep the MPD but swap the station for carriage sidings.  You could have a pilot coming in shunting coaches for an off scene terminus.  It can be any size your imagination requires then.  All your locos and stock can be stored on the layout and will be on show most of the time

 

eg 

 

Model only the back end of the terminus.  So you only ever see the first three coaches of a train and the rest of the terminus and station throat is off scene.  If you use a traverser or cassettes you can access all the roads and provide run around, etc

 

eg

[Crumplezone]

I'll take the other plans shown in the past few posts into consideration. In regard to the points I know about the spacing and deadfrog though my locos have not had issue navigating them as they have all wheel pickup so atleast one wheel has always been in contact with the live lines.

I can't really just go ahead and bin all the Hornby points as it was alot of money in the first place and its somewhat irresponsible to just do that, to replace the points to medium SL-E96 and E95s to the plan I showed based on operation build it! it comes to a bare minimal of £75 before postage and considering the other requirements for wiring and making a electrofrog point work the cost will go well over £100. At this time it would probably be Jan by the time I could touch the layout if I choose to replace, especially with the run up to x-mas not to far off.

I'll see what I can do and thank you for everyone's input.

[Satan's Goldfish]

The question really is 'what do you want visually out of your layout?' Personally I like the look of Jon's plan. As already pointed out, the space you have compromises you a bit but there's nothing to stop you using Jon's plan as the depot beside a larger station, with the only part of the station modelled being the 2 platforms closest to the shed. Possibly bay platforms due to their short length. Number them (for example) as platforms 7 and 6 with 5 being the very front edge of the layout itself stretching all the way left as if representing a longer platform further into the station. If your goods wagons are just vans then they could be justified in the platforms also picking up packages/parcels/mail.

 

HTH

[jon_1066]

Following on from Satan's Goldfish.  There is a possible way to justify a restaurant car in the scene as part of a larger station.  In the steam era it was not uncommon for trains to be split along their route and coaches to be sent to different destinations.  You could therefore possibly justify it as three coaches cut out of a longer rake mid journey.  So a station pilot would exit scene and return shunting the coaches into the bay where the restaurant car is restocked prior to being reattached to a returning train (ie shunted out again by a station pilot).  If you combined this with a change of loco there is a good excuse for mainline locos in your MPD

 

So your bay could see a variety of rolling stock:  Vans for parcels; the restaurant car set in blood and custard; and some non corridor stock on local workings.  The MPD could then justifiably see local tank engines, goods engines and mainline steam engines.

 

This would all let you draw up a sequence of workings built around the imaginary larger station requirements.

[TonyMay]

Here's a 10' * 4' MPD (including cassette fiddle yard) with turntable and 3 points:

 

 

[Peter Kazmierczak]

I like Jon's idea too, of having carriage sidings rather than a station. It has a more "authentic" look and feel to it.

 

Depending on your priorities, you many want to reverse Jon's plan and have the carriage sidings at the rear of the layout, to provide a background for your locos.