Harlequin

I'm pretty new at this so but surely the answer is: timetables and signalling. You know how many trains your station can handle at once and you design your timetable so that the station is never overloaded and so that the reception line(s) for the next incoming train will be freed up well in advance. Then if things go wrong and none of the acceptable reception lines are free the signalman shouldn't allow the incoming train anywhere near, making sure on single line tracks that it also doesn't prevent him sending a train out, otherwise things would be really jammed up! The experts will be able to illuminate us.

Got "Part Two" in the post today. :-)

For Garage operation you want to be able to connect X and Y the "right way up". There are two ways to do that: Either make the track joins central to the board ends so that they can be connected either way around or, probably better, since boards 1 and 2 are only for garage mode just make them feed into boards X and Y the "right way up". Does that make sense?

Erm, yes... I think so...

I didn't get as far with my reading last night as I hoped to: And today I got "Great Western Branch Line Modelling Part One" (Stephen Williams) in the post to add to the reading pile. Even though there's still more research to be done, another possible variation (33g) popped into my head this morning, picking up on Regularity's suggestion and on Barnstaple (Vic Road) again: (You can see the previous design 33d hatched underneath.) None of the scenery or buildings are shown on this drawing yet because I've got to move them all... Pros: The whole axis of the station is turned another degree (now 5degs). Some of the station forecourt is sacrificed to make room for the goods sidings. I think I can make that work. Goods sidings are longer and smoother - still with nice curves. Mileage siding. Longer "Back siding" disappears off stage to imply that it's even longer than modelled. Entry to Gasworks siding brought forward to better separate the bridge from the culvert and make the bridge longer. Fairly open goods yard. Cons: Too much track (still)? A bit less scenery Not quite the country station I'd pictured (but I realise that my original concept may have been wrong). VERY difficult baseboard joins - will need some creative thinking This is not just vacillating (I hope). Exploring the options should mean that I make the best choice(s) before starting to build. (Something like the Iain Rice method but done on a computer.)

Has the Squadron Leader seen the new Railcar yet? If so it won't be long before he wants one of these cutting edge, streamlined beauties: A de Havilland Dragon Rapide would be a great camera platform for Ken Dobettar, I would imagine.

I received "Great Western Branch Line Termini Combined Edition" (Paul Karau) and "The Newton Abbot to Moretonhampstead Railway" (Kingdom & Lang) today. Thanks for the gentle nudges. The fire is lit, wine is poured, lasagne is in the oven and I'm ready to settle in for some serious reading, cats allowing.

Hi Bill, Here's a possible modular setup: The cream modules (1220*450) and green modules (610*450) can be used in either inside or outside config. Blue corner modules allow you to connect everything in inside config. The pink modules allow you to connect in outside config (exhibition???). The green modules are only needed to make the smallest possible inside config work (top left) and could be ignored. Min radius 450mm (metric 18in). All modules can be scenic if you want or some non-scenic just to connect the scenic modules into a circuit for playing. Obviously what I've shown is just the ruthlessly logical basic design and in reality you'd make the lines a bit more curvy, fiddle with the backscene curves, make some boards require joins to specific other boards so that scenery continues, etc. etc... The bottom left config is closest to your doughnut and is 8ft square with a 5ft operating well. Edit: Did you really mean ruling radius 45inches above? Or 45cms? Here's a 45in radius circle (magenta) superimposed on a set of boards: It fits nicely but of course those boards will now only fit together that way.

Here are some centre lines, keeping most of the curvature in the same sense to try to make the design "flow". All points could have straight sections. First points right against the edge of the board and perpendicular where the fiddle yard enters. Diagonal layout to make best use of area. 6in spur for small loco at far end.

Hi Will, (Bill? William?) Why circular baseboards? You could have a reasonably curvacious track plan on rectilinear boards and save yourself a whole heap of trouble! BTW: You could think about modular boards that go together in different combinations for different spaces, like earlier suggestions for Caterham/Purley, and perhaps connect in Godstone Road. Aside: What software are you using? (I ask because of the horrible "jaggies" along the edges.)

Hi Craig, I can answer your points (sorry, that word again) to some degree: I only have a small space available in the model (2400*575mm scenic) so I need to use all the valuable real-estate that I've got. That's obviously not a satisfying prototypical answer but you might argue that something similar applied at 1:1 scale because of the geology at the head of the river valley. Since the bay platform is mainly used to hold trains for short periods before departure it wouldn't interfere with access to the engine house that much. When the bay is occupied and a loco needs access to or from the engine house, I don't think that's too painful because the loco can easily wait somewhere out of the way until the bay is cleared. I need the gasworks building to be "on stage" for various reasons. Again, a modeller's answer not a prototypical one... The GWR didn't want work on the gasworks siding to adversely affect the existing trackwork or day to day operations and they were worried about the increased risk of flooding. So they allowed the connection on condition that it was made to the goods yard and did not require any work on the culvert. Remember that in the imaginary real world (confused?) these features would be much longer and more spaciously separated. Having said all that, you have made me think about the engine house spur and I can see the distant glimmer of an idea that might improve things. @Regularity: I'm not fully committed to the platform bay yet but I think it has more pros than cons at the moment and the example of Barnstaple (Vic Road) gives me prototypical license. And this morning, on balance, I think the simpler 33d version without the 3rd siding is a better representation of the inland rural station. Hampton Malstead is not as big as Barnstaple and as you've pointed out operations would already be very interesting. The real clincher for that "decision" is that I could add that 3rd siding in later on - just as might have been done in the imaginary real world. Knowing that, I can prepare in the model by making sure a point servo will not be fouled by supports and I can cut the track and rejoin it. This is real planning ahead!

Variation 33d: Push goods shed line into bottom left corner but don't add a 3rd goods/cattle siding. Goods yard is opened up. Trackwork is simple, Goods shed view blocker. Can play with levels and can retain broad gauge shed post bases. Cattle pens and end-loading from spur at end of run round loop, as originally intended.

Still thinking about options and convincing scenarios but inspired by Regularity's modifications and Barnstaple (Victoria Road) I came up with this possible variation: Pros Extra goods/cattle siding More spacious feeling to goods yard Goods shed performs better as view blocker Still two sidings opposite gasworks kickback to make shunting a bit easier Goods shed line make full use of baseboard diagonal No major changes to signalling (!) Cons Too much track? More track joints across baseboards Less opportunity to disguise baseboard joint May have to abandon clever perspective ideas about slightly different levels for goods and passenger lines May have to abandon remains of broad gauge train shed

I have been looking at the info Regularity kindly sent me about Cardigan and searching for other relevant prototypes. A very interesting example is "Barnstaple (Victoria Road)": http://www.greatwestern.org.uk/stat_1.htm Barnstaple Victoria Road was a terminus originally built to broad gauge standards and later taken over by the GWR. The links to the track plan and signal diagram on that page are not obvious (white on a cream background...) so I will repeat them here: You can see that the basic topology is very similar to Hampton Malstead as currently conceived, even down to the difficult-to-shunt kickback fuel siding.

Very interesting! It's good to have my fixed ideas challenged and I can see pros and cons in your suggestions. I'm going to have to think about this...

Hampton Malstead <Imagine beautiful stylised design of trees, valleys, distant purple moortops, blue sky and, amongst it all, a small green loco pulling chocolate and cream coaches> Gateway to Eden

Thanks for your thoughts and advice everyone. I will rotate the diagram at some stage, adjust the lever numbering and see what I can do about the FPLs on the bay crossover. Luckily I have one spare lever! I haven't yet devised a full back-story or thought about exactly what facilities lie further up the line (down the valley). When I do, things in the station might have to be tweaked but the basic idea for now is that Hampton Malstead is a thriving moorland town that serves villages for many miles around. Some of the ideas from earlier in the thread will be applied to justify the level of development at the station: The surrounding countryside is renowned for its beauty and variety and so has become a tourist attraction. (Maybe I should create a publicity poster...) There is a quarry a few miles down the valley that occasionally makes use of the station facilities because its own infrastructure is pretty basic. Point-to-point races are held nearby that regularly draw entrants and crowds from across the county. (So yes, I should give more thought to horse loading and unloading.) The toe-to-toe turnouts in the goods yard straddle a baseboard join and so cannot be easily combined. Also, the trackwork is all rendered in Peco Streamline Bullhead so I'm restricted to using their large radius straight left/right geometries at the moment. Even the trap point will be a cut down large radius Streamline bullhead point. (I'm not ready to start building my own track yet.) @Regularity: For me at least, part of the satisfaction of the layout will come from knowing that other people also find it satisfying. So I am listening intently to what everyone's saying! I hope that I haven't yet strayed into the realms of the unconvincing and I think I can justify my choices so far: Exactly modelling the prototype requires a lot of space, as I found when attempting to compress Moretonhampstead, hence the fictional location. I'm doing my best to obey the rules, not make exceptions, within the constraints of compression and the need to create something that is artistically pleasing (e.g. follow GWR signalling practice). I hope I'm stitching together typical features in a concentrated but realistic way. For me, the operational possibilities also need to be concentrated. A beautifully convincing model that only received a prototypical one train a day would be wholly unsatisfying to me. Hence, more than one engine in steam, the bay platform and the backstory. If I ever "Jump the Shark" everyone should please shout at me!

Here's revision 32: [Click to enlarge] Bay signalling and trackwork upgraded for passenger working. Better points symbols showing normal positions. Point indicators for engine release (14) and engine house siding trap (15). I had to make up a symbol for a point indicator. Small arms on brackets, possibly centre pivoted, reading from down main into goods yard (8) and bay platform into engine house (5). Edit: If something like this drawing were to be used as the signal box diagram it would have to be rotated by 180 degrees, of course. But I can't face that right now!

Excellent! Thanks Mike, you truly are "The Stationmaster". Hopefully my next post will nail it...

Here's a revised signalling diagram. How am I doing? [Click to enlarge] I have decided that the spur above the platform may be used as a passenger bay occasionally, as well as giving access to the engine house (as I like to call it). This adds a bit of operational flexibility and in fact makes the station throat a little narrower so the culvert is shorter again and there a bit more room for something scenic behind. I have lengthened the new bay very slightly so that it can accommodate an auto train. I realise this may mean some of the advice suggested above may need to be revised. There will be more than one engine in steam in the station. Thus there will be a proper signal box. The engine release crossover is controlled from the box. The ground disc signalling the engine release crossover is slaved to the front point stretcher bar (is that the same as a "point indicator"?) The various crossovers are all connected to shared levers. The goods siding points are hand operated, but... The point leading into the goods yard is controlled from the box (lever 13) because it affects whether the run round loop can be used by passenger or other visiting traffic and I think the signalman needs to be in control of that. I have tentatively suggested that arriving access to the bay platform is signalled by a small armed siding signal on a bracket (lever 6). This is a bit of a stab in the dark! Suggestions welcome. [Edit: I realise there would be interlocks between points and signals but I don't think I need to address that now, and possibly never, depending on how the layout is operated.)

Nope! Clue: In the UK, trains run on the left of double tracks.

Hi "Lacath" (any chance of sharing your "real-world" name?), I have been reading "Model Railway Signalling" by CJF and "Railway Signalling and Track Plans" by Bob Essery. I also found some wonderful signal box diagrams on Google: https://www.google.co.uk/search?tbm=isch&q=signalling+diagrams+uk&chips=q:signalling+diagrams+uk,online_chips:box+diagram&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwie6LnvidDYAhWMVhQKHSQ6CvIQ4lYILygH&biw=2566&bih=1312&dpr=1.5#imgrc=_

Point taken and I will think about what you've said but Iain Rice's point is that some stations really were difficult to shunt and if you make it too easy then you get much less operation taking place "on stage". ( I used the word "point" twice in that sentence - in a thread about points and signalling... Sorry ;-) )