Branchline layout plan in OO

[CJ_60110]

Hi guys, long time lurker but first time poster here

 

Just wanted critique and help with my track plan for a layout I want to build. It's the Eastern/North Eastern region in the mid 50s, about 1956. It won't be exclusively BR (NE/E), I will probably try and run the odd Midland interloper. I have no real idea for a location, I would (one day) like to try my hand at etched brass kit building with kits like a Gresley A8 4-6-2T or a B16/2 or B16/3 being on my agenda, therefore somewhere in the former NER area definitely. I have toyed with the idea of a branchline from Scarborough on the line to Hull, geographically somewhere after the the line shoots off the other line to York and Malton.

 

It will be 2.5 foot by 9 foot, built on a baseboard (if I can get one) of the same size.

 

Control is planned to be DCC, though how that works out with wanting to build brass kits, I'm sure I'll find out

 

 

This is the plan, I've tried to include what I think a branchline terminus should have - station, goods yard and small shed. Plan is also to have a 3.5/4 foot fiddle yard on the left hand side, which is where in my model world, a turntable will exist in order to provide justification for the running of tender locomotives such as B17, B1, various Standard 2MT, 3MT and 4MT designs etc. Apart from one piece of Setrack, the layout is entirely Peco Code 100 Streamline with flexi track being used across the layout.

 

As far as train formations go, in particular passenger workings, I've estimated space at the platform as being sufficient for 3 Gresley suburbans, the space being 110cm and each suburban being about 25cm, plus a locomotive. That to my mind seems right for a moderately busy branchline. There will be somewhat ordinary freight workings - mixed, parcels and coal traffic.

 

Thanks in advance for any assistance and advice with the plan. It might take a while to get built but I'm feeling motivated, with Warley being a week away.

 

Chris

[bennyboy]

Firstly I don't think that a branch line terminus would have a two road engine shed also the middle set of crossovers on the run around loop seem to be a bit superfluous.

[CJ_60110]

Firstly I don't think that a branch line terminus would have a two road engine shed also the middle set of crossovers on the run around loop seem to be a bit superfluous.

 

Hi, thanks for your feedback

 

 

Changed it or rather attempted to change it in line with your response, does this look any better/more realistic?

 

Also looked again at my available space and decided it would be better for me switched round so trains enter from the right, not the left.

[Graham Walters]

I have the same sort of problems, and am having trouble settling on a layout design, from what I've gathered and seen from prototypes, I would guess that a BLT would be very unlikely to have it's own engine shed, others will no doubt prove me wrong.

 

Three lines for a good yard also seems a little excessive for a BLT, but again others will probably say it's fine.

 

I'm spending a lot of time looking at old YouTube vids, and maps to get an idea of what was going on on the railways in my era, it may save you a lot of headaches to do the same.

[CJ_60110]

I have the same sort of problems, and am having trouble settling on a layout design, from what I've gathered and seen from prototypes, I would guess that a BLT would be very unlikely to have it's own engine shed, others will no doubt prove me wrong.

 

Three lines for a good yard also seems a little excessive for a BLT, but again others will probably say it's fine.

 

I'm spending a lot of time looking at old YouTube vids, and maps to get an idea of what was going on on the railways in my era, it may save you a lot of headaches to do the same.

 

Hi Graham, my own justification for a shed was essentially so there could be a  shed for a station pilot of sorts.

 

The goods yard, is 2 road with a little area platform for parcels, loading/unloading vans etc but because they're close together, I can see why that could cause confusion.

 

I'll have a look on Youtube now, that's a good idea, and one that I hadn't considered

 

Books of images are also handy, I've got one of Scarborough in the 50s and it's not all A8s, B16s and D49s, in the very late 50s, Scarborough had a Jinty as station pilot which I'm taking as an excuse to run stuff that's not Eastern

[jon_1066]

Currently you have no protection for the running lines from a runaway wagon from the goods yard.

The set track curved point could give you problems with derails

If you got rid of it the line from the goods yard would act as a head shunt and kill two birds with one stone.

 

It's also looking a little cramped.  There is no space between the goods yard lines for loading/unloading

You could get some more space for your lines in the goods yard by putting the engine shed on the kick back siding on the RHS.  This allows you to have some scenery behind and/or shuffle the whole thing up a little. 

 

Good luck with your build

[Graham Walters]

Hi Graham, my own justification for a shed was essentially so there could be a  shed for a station pilot of sorts.

 

The goods yard, is 2 road with a little area platform for parcels, loading/unloading vans etc but because they're close together, I can see why that could cause confusion.

 

I'll have a look on Youtube now, that's a good idea, and one that I hadn't considered

 

Books of images are also handy, I've got one of Scarborough in the 50s and it's not all A8s, B16s and D49s, in the very late 50s, Scarborough had a Jinty as station pilot which I'm taking as an excuse to run stuff that's not Eastern

 

I agree with the above that you do need some kind of goods shed for loading/unloading, perhaps that would be more essential in a BLT than an engine shed ?

 

I've also found that when using layout software, it makes it look as though you don't have a lot of space, believe me, there is more there than you think, my only other suggestion would be to print the odd concept out 1:1 to give you a better idea of the scale and size, you can then accurately draw your infrastructure like stations, goods sheds etc.

[TonyMay]

If we have a look at the area marked below, we have reverse curves.  Entering the station, we have a curve to the left, point to the right, point to the left, point to the right all next to each other.  This not only looks wrong but will probably be a recipe for poor running.

 

 

If we change it slightly, we can achieve the same effect without having the reverse curves.  A double slip is shorter than 2 small points back-to-back (even if you squeeze the toes of the points together by hacking off the ends).

 

 

The curve at the end is going to be massievely unprototypical in the design and the design trick is first to minimise and then to hide it.  Use set-track curves for sharp curves, they're easier to use than flexible track

 

I'm not sure why there are two loops; there is the loop on the curve and the main platform loop.  I'd drop the loop on the curve and use a curved point on the curve to start the main loop.  Not sure if I'd go for a curved streamline or set-track point; the ST point is sharper radius and this might impact.  Something Like this then:

 

[Nick Holliday]

I agree with several points that have been made.

 

I'd certainly get rid of the facing point leading straight into the yard and just leave the line as a decent headshunt for the yard.  If you do keep it there needs to be a trap point or headshunt to prevent stray wagons.  I can't seewhat purpose that connection serves, and in real life might present problems with an additional, unnecessary facing point, and the length of rodding required to work it and the FPL.

 

As for the position of the engine shed, I agree that it would be better on the headshunt top right on your plan.  As it stands, that bit of siding serves no purpose, and by moving the shed away from the platform that either gives more space to model a loading dock or platform above the main platform, or allows you to move the platform back a bit, and give more space in the goods yard, so that you can recreate the ability to get road vehicles between railway wagons.

[wainwright1]

Hi CJ.

Like your ideas.

I think that quite a few branch line termini did have sheds, especially some of the earlier ones that were built by independent companies.

I do not have any great knowledge of North Eastern practises, but thought that you might be interested in the track plan for Hawkhurst, which I have modelled in 00. This was built by an independent company, but operated by the South Eastern Railway from the outset.

 

 

My layout is designed for exhibition use and the main part of it, approximately as per the track plan above is mounted on three baseboards 4ft x 2.5ft. It then continues round on a fourth L shaped board to the fiddle yard.

It is in fact quite a compact station site, but has a very good selection of facilities: coal yard, oil depot, goods shed, crane road, end loading dock and cattle dock, not to mention two road loco shed with coaling stage and water tower. You obviously do not have space for all of these, but you could easily add a crane, the end loading dock and cattle dock without using up much space.

You say that you are looking at using mostly modern ready to run stock and possibly some etched brass loco kits. Most of these would have good profile wheels, presumably RP 25 on the kit built ones, so you could in fact go for code 75 track rather than the code 100, which would look better. However, Peco only make their catch points in code 100, so if you were intending to use them, assuming that you had the space, that would remain your preference unless you wanted to scratch or kit build them.

One final thought, your curve around to the fiddle yard looks very severe and might cause a problem with kit-built locos, so I would make that a transitional curve if possible rather than a tight set radius and check it thoroughly with all your rolling stock before fixing it down permanently.

If you want to get an idea of how spacious your layout could look on the same depth boards, albeit in a forshortened form, have a look at my Hawkhurst layout on our website; southwarkmrc.wordpress. Look at the layout section and also the gallery where I have recently post a lot of pictures.

Hope this is of assistance and gives you a grasp of the potential.

All the best.

Ray

 

 

[The Black Hat]

Somebody mention North Eastern?

 

If your wanting a two road shed it all depends on your traffic level. A station like Scarbrough was rather busy, hence not only the station but the massive goods sidings too. Whitby had its own 2 road engine shed, a one thats been made by TMC as a resin ready to go building, if you can find one.

 

Your station needs to be careful pending on where your wanting it to be. Most branches in the North East were designed around freight, not passenger, with the local service being a bonus. Runs to the sea side saw places like Saltburn, Whitby and Scarbough suddenly massively popular but putting your station there would mean massive trains of tourists to bring more interest and given size that makes it difficult. However, going in land to a backwater scenic north eastern branch might mean less need for a large two road shed that you could get.

 

Be careful with your track layouts. North Eastern stuff was overtly simplistic although thankfully their standardisation even included buildings and an NER station has been done by both Hornby and Bachmann. Funny how they BOTH make a NER building but no NER engines, yet its the only place the two overlap. A lot of that has to do with Goathland though. Your double entry track with one to the freight yard one to the shed and station just duplicates track, it looks good but would cost. Branches here were built to minimal costs to recoup getting there. Also as mentioned watch out for reverse curves as these would be skewed the other way. Easy way to do it is to plan to do everything with as few points as possible yet maintain the same action. Do that and you find what youd have in reality or at least get close.

 

My suggestion would be to model the branch as somewhere off a main spur. Not quite all the way up into the dales but on a valley thats near a market town thats a gateway to one. You can use small medium tanks like the L1, BR 3MT and maybe a J39 for service trains, putting a link to a local colliery in there somewhere might mean engines move to the shed to service before returning to the sidings off section that then take their trains forwards. That puts a whole raft of freight into play. Check out stations like Waskerley or Wearhead if you want true end of dales stuff, while lines like the one to Hawes, or the ones from Hexham could be somewhere good to base your line on. Its best to start looking at the geography for where you want it to roughly be. Then space, traffic type would all be hinted at and youd find what youd need to plan to run. Any further south and your down where North Eastern starts to meet Midland or Great Northern stuff.... and whod want that!

[CJ_60110]

Hi guys, thanks for taking the time to reply. Over the weekend, you can guess where I went, so much so this year that I went back on the Sunday. What really struck me about it this year was the N Gauge layouts. I recall seeing one with a Garratt with a seemingly unending train of wagons. The detail and the way it seems to be a lot better than it seemed when I first started going to Warley in 2006. Suffice to say, it got me thinking about the directions I wish to go in, so I'm going to have a little look at N gauge for the time being because of the way I can get more stuff into the space I've got without feeling to myself like I'm compromising. Equally good is the fact that while I do have preferences - i.e. BR Steam days (I say that straight faced with a Blue Deltic as my profile pic), I don't really exist in one particular area in that I prefer one company or region over the other.

 

So this isn't a "I'm not going to build anything, it's a wait and see" based on what I saw myself of n gauge at Warley.

 

Chris