RobinofLoxley

The plan is squashed, but I simply followed the original prospectus. To be honest I assumed that the OP couldn't find a satisfactory solution meeting his criteria, so it wasn't the moment to start offering alternatives. To me it looks a lot of track for a single track branch terminus, so it needs a good cover story. The main temptation is to reduce by 1 track and use the space to have a wider platform, although that isn't required.

If the left-most turnout is replaced by a three-way turnout and the turnout nearest the arriving line is removed, then all 3 sidings face the headshunt. It would clearly help if that triangular piece was wide enough to take the headshunt track further; otherwise to increase its length the sidings must be shortened. It may not show up on the drawing but there is a trap point between the goods sidings and the main arrivals line, and another on the runaround loop. As far as the shorter train is concerned, it can be researched to find out what a typical formation might be; for sure that could be a single coach at times; but note if you make a 3 coach train impossible by design, you can't run it.

Maybe something like this. Its tight to get the platform length! I drew a building across the station track at the LH end to be a street level type, but Anyrail seems to have lost it in conversion.

Welcome to the madhouse 'The Nottingham Extension' would you mind telling us what track code you have built in, for the rest of the project. Also, which way is the station facing (or to put it another way, where does the operator stand on that diagram)? Having created quite a sructure already, I'm slightly puzzled as to why you need advice for this particular section. Are you looking fora prototype or just a plan that gets all the features in?

Just for clarity @Chimer could you highlight which is the 'First' plan you are referring to, thanks.

@moawkwrd dont beat yourself up at all over the first plan, its in a restricted space and well thought out. The second plan is different, I'm not sure its an improvement myself. Out of interest to see what Hornby TT looked like I redrew the plan, the only issue is the crossover. I replaced it in a different position as shown below - I dont know if that works any more, but I assumed that the same number of sidings was required. However, I didnt have any problem with Tillig slips, part 83300 slots straight in, its the same length as the crossover. How the track profile is though I have no idea. (Sorry about the dodgy pasting).

One more thing Tim, although you say that the given dimensions are the larget that you can use, presumably you have some operating space in front, for example? I'm asking because in any layout trains have to come and go from 'Somewhere' and in this case, the answer might be to feed them on and off from the front side by using what is normally called a cassette - a length of rail on a plank or in a box that can be hooked on to the front to run a train on or off. So what do you have in that respect?

Starting from the top, we have a layout with Streamline turnouts. They look like the smallest, code 91 or 92, about 8 inches long, making the scale squares 1 foot or 300mm which is a typical size. So its 8 feet long. The second is with Setrack items (wider angles), making the layout 6' long. The third is scaled in metres so it would be about 12 feet long. The lower is more or less a copy of the first one, differently scales and cropped. If I'm right about the scales, they are all one foot wide, apart from No 2. So really all are the wrong size, as too narrow. But shunting plank layouts are quite typical.

Welcome Tim. Mdf isnt a recommended material for making baseboards, most here will vote for good quality plywood, minimum 9mm thick. It will help anyone suggesting a plan, if you could possibly find a location that interests you to make it the basis of a model. When you talk about messing up, what track planning software if any have you tried? Era is basically 'Blue Diesel' , is that correct? With the restricted space did you consider a smaller scale, do you already have OO stock?

'Branch Line Terminii of the GWR, volume 2', by Paul Karau has some photos that show the loading bank, in the section about Princetown. There isn't any relevant description or text in it, though. There are drawings of the buildings, without dimensions, but there is no mention there of the bank, I suppose because it's not a building.

This kind of question usually appears when there is an operating problem, and people start looking for some kind of fault.

I walked the entire length once during a service hiatus took 20 mins to do the circuit.

I thought the Eurostar platforms at Cheriton were longer??

The most significant practical problem to me is access at the top left; the loop there needs a hatch, wide enough for shoulders to get through, where the sidings are on the latest plan. A similar problem with the turntable exists on the right. Very complex to build, especially with the split board requirement. I have doubts about how well this will operate; can you export from your drawing package to Trainplayer, so you can see if it works.

I have a layout with this sort of structure but my sections in the area A-A' and B-B' are both long enough by design to be switchable so that is what I have done. I used one AR1 and one LS450 (not sure about the number there). The AR1 was harder to set up but neither has failed since introduction.

I have a loft space of similar size and i have platforms which can take 5 x Mk1 coaches plus a loco in the Terminus style stations that I have, and 6 x in the intermediate station. This is with the platforms being some inches longer than the trains, and allowing a station pilot to remove the coach rake without fouling any turnouts. With this pattern the whole layout appears to be decently proportional but I probably wont know that until the layout is fully populated with buildings and other miscellaneous things.

OK but the station tracks and the loop 'below' don't line up..

The first revision certainly works, but I can't see how the revision with an upper level works at all. Have you done any work on gradients? You also need to recognise access. You cant reach top right or left to fix a stall or derailment and have put objects in the way of access hatches that would be needed in the baseboards. Most people reckon on a human reach limit of 80-90cm.

I operated 36 SEEP motors with one CDU through a bank of switches. Noisy, broke a couple of turnouts too

Love it

I've been working my way round the terminus stations looking for examples. Often there are additional complexities caused by the presence of additional sidings, but if these are ignored so you look at the trackwork of the platform access lines only, examples can be found. The other point is that one line might divide creating a fourth platform but this doesn't alter the route used by arriving or departing trains at all. An example of this would be Lowestoft central, which has extra pointwork taking lines across the main lines to goods sidings on both sides of them, including access to the harbour. It has a spur protected by a trap point. There are four platforms, two of which are common access (probably the smaller was parcels or milk) so really it's 3 line access and the turnout pattern follows my definition. I havnt checked the real layout on the ground, only the signal box diagram so far. (1967 signal box diagram)

Of course you are right i had a complete brain fade moment there

There are surely two reverse loops, but the line that crosses the centre of the layout is common to both, so provided the polarity of that track section is changed at the right time, and that will depend on the position of the turnouts at each end of that section, there won't be any issue. If you are happy that you understand the electrics well enough to use frog juicers then do; personally if I wanted to change track polarity I would use the device dedicated for the purpose, namely a reversing module.

@Pacific231G Thanks for asnwering my query and not debating the (Obviously arguable) criteria.

@DCB, two comments; firstly looking at the double track on the right, I drew the inner loop first using exactly the minimum radius specified by the OP; second, that minimum curve spec isnt binding on me, I can draw what I like especially if I'm trying to illustrate a point as much as make a serious proposal. Really, the minimum curve requirement is there because of other features of the layout - obviously the OP was trying to avoid a simple oval or double oval, as soon as you close those ends up the space they need dominates everything - there was some ingenuity in the original plan to get a continuous run out of it. I forgot to add this but there are a few positions where the loop curves can be eased a bit by using curved turnouts - I show only one, but there are several opportunities. Also, I would ensure that in any final version all the loop curves could be 3rd or fourth radius exactly, as loops like that are easier to construct accurately from setrack. Theres usually a single piece of flexi that has to be custom formed in such loops. It's true we dont know the dimensions and other restrictions, but one thing that we can see, is that the left hand loop needs to be empty as it will have to be an operator access.