Balders45

34 minutes ago, Harlequin said:

How long is the dead-end double track section? Since traffic can't move along it in any realistic way is there any point powering it at all? (Maybe you aren't but it's difficult to tell really what's going on from your screenshotted sketches.)

 

Hi Phil 

To add context, your design  attached has been laid and works a treat. I have Removed the fiddle yard and replaced it with the track plan also attached. The dead end is only approx 600mm but I like the idea of a branch line joining a "second main line"  and then off to a resited FY  where I plan to use a cassette system

Green is track power 

Red are insulated

Single slip is the one that's having the short.

5 hours ago, Dungrange said:

Have you included plastic fishplates at each of the common crossings (ie frogs)?  It is most likely a missing isolated joiner that is causing the problem.

I have currently an end to end layout with the main track feed on the bottom of the red spur. Struggling to power The new track work without causing shorts. All trackwork is peco electro frog (straight out of the packet) the diamond crossing is an insulfrog single slip. Any help would be appreciated 

Thanks

I have currently an end to end layout with the main track feed on the bottom of the red spur. Struggling to power The new track work without causing shorts. All trackwork is peco electro frog (straight out of the packet) the diamond crossing is an insulfrog single slip. Any help would be appreciated 

Thanks

3 hours ago, melmerby said:

How on earth have you managed that image?

It's upside down mirrored!⁉️

No idea! Only attached a screen shot!!!! 

3 hours ago, 009 micro modeller said:

Just to clarify, which is the branch? The red bit on the right, or the two black lines converging into one on the left? To go back briefly to the Chesham example, the black lines on the left look a bit like the old picture of Chesham (with a double track junction and crossovers), whereas the red lines look vaguely like the modern version (with the ‘ladder’ junction). I get the impression from reading about Chesham that you wouldn’t normally expect to see both arrangements together in the same time period, although there are probably exceptions. However, I agree with others that it may look somewhat over the top on a model.

The current layout is currently an L shape as attached designed by Harlequin. A BLT running into a FY. My plan was to remove the fiddle yard and run a single line which converges into a main line which will be on a new board and thus create a "U" shape layout where the FY will be reinstated as shown on the fag packet sketch.Tbh the proposed bidirectional branchline was an extra play thing which I thought may look OK if done as close as possible to the real thing. I quite like the look of trains snaking over junctions!!

3 hours ago, Flying Pig said:

 

Not really - see the posts above describing double to single junctions.  And yes, imo you're using an ostrich egg where a bantam hen's would be ample.  You've already introduced a dummy main line for the interest of a junction - leave it at that. It doesn't matter how many prototypical examples people can find, another branch line would very probably look contrived and won't really add any play value.

I just thought some trains could exit from FY on to the main line, branch left round into the station, run round and return, cross main line on to the  proposed bidirectional line and dissappear  into FY. Giving it a more sense of from somewhere to somewhere else Instead of entering and leaving through the same bridge/tunnel portal

1 hour ago, 009 micro modeller said:

Is Chalfont and Latimer (junction for the Chesham branch) an appropriate example or are you specifically looking for locations where the lines were operated by separate companies?

No where in particular, just looking to add more playability and running options whilst trying if possible to create a believable junction. My layout is called stockdale junction so I thought I'd better incorporate a junction!!

would this track layout be plausible ( red line showing the bi directional branchline junction) or am I over egging the pudding?

4 hours ago, The Stationmaster said:

We are talking about facing point lock (or locking) bars - i.e. the bars which operate the actual facing point lock bolt and which are prevented from rising by the wheels of a passing train thus ensuring that the points remain locked during the passage of a train.  

 

Fouling bars are a different thing entirely and can be either depression or rising bars (FP locking bars are rising bars) and serve to ensure that vehicles are clear of the trailing end of a point.

For a bit of context, Harlequin produced the attached track plan inc fiddle yard which I have built. With a bit of space becoming available to extend I want to remove the fiddle yard and bring the single track around and join it where I show the single track becoming a double joint a fictions mainline. For added operational interest I thought about adding the bi directional single branchline. My new fiddle yard would be slimmed down and use cassettes opposed to storage roads.

I appreciate this proposed  tracklayout may be as rare as rocking horse poo but something that would look plausible will do for me!

Thanks everyone for your time, comments, thoughts and input so far

57 minutes ago, micknich2003 said:

Here's an example of a Double to Single Line Junction, three versions, as installed, provision of level crossing, and then as relayed etc. Details on drawings.

1 hour ago, Wickham Green too said:

If your two branch lines were built by the main line company ( or associates ) there would, undoubtedly, be a station between them to allow interchange : think Athenry. [ If the branches were a through route of a different company the later arrival would probably bridge the other ( with connections as an afterthought, p'raps ) : think Kingham.

Thanks for your response, certainly no room for bridging so a less engineered solution is needed! Would like it to be as realistic as possible but space is a premium 

Looking to add a branch line connection to cross over  the existing "main line" on to the single line heading off to a BLT, would the branchline train come off the bidirectional single line and run wrong road on to the single line accross the main up and down lines? Or would there be a more intricate track layout needed?Trackwork is code100, what pointwork would be used to achieve this? Fag packet drawing attached!

Thanks martin

55 minutes ago, Butler Henderson said:

Depends if you can come up with a reasonable explanation like the branch was upgraded to cope with military traffic in WW1 or WW2 and as it serves a slightly well to do  town there is sufficient demand for a commuter service to the big city; so the short coach set starts out by being drawn tender first to the terminus and then after running round the train to the big city departs, at the first major station reached a longer set of coaches are attached.

That'll do it, i can start looking for a jubilee now!! Thanks

6 hours ago, TonyMay said:

A branchline isn't a secondary route - it's a  tertiary route.  A jubilee will always look out of place, even if it did happen once in a blue moon.  It doesn't look natural.  There are other models that should have higher consideration; Bachmann 3F 0-6-0, 4F, 3F Jinty, Fairburn tank.  A black five, being a class 5 engine, and generally much more common, would be more likely to turn up at a branch terminus than a class 6 jubilee. 

 

You have said everything I've said to myself!!! Life would seem so empty without a jubilee! Need a valid reason ( all be it a sketchy one) 

6 hours ago, No Decorum said:

If you think a Black 5 is an acceptable alternative, what about a tank loco? They are designed to go backwards as well as forwards. The 2-6-4Ts are impressive machines and you could choose from a Hornby Fowler or Stanier or a Bachmann Ivatt. They are only one power class below the Black 5s. Some Hornby Fowlers were even LMS red, if that’s your fancy. Other tank locos are available.

 

I can understand your liking of Jubilees, though. Beautiful machines with a fascinating history.

I have a ivatt 2mt tank plus a small prairie, for tender locos I also have a 4f along with the BR std class 4. So a jubilee would be a welcome addition!! 

Hi, did jubilee's run secondary routes and/or  did they ever run tender first?.I Have a BLT Layout so no turntable, I  know about rule 1 so  i could run what i like, i would sleep better knowing they may have been used ( even if covering for a failed or repaired loco) thinking of the Bachmann jubilee or a if not suitable perhaps the Hornby black 5

All comments and thoughts appreciated 

Thanks 

13 hours ago, Harlequin said:

Here's a version with a few tweaks - most notably moving the end loading position.

 

And revised fiddle yard as discussed with Martin.

 

Absolutely perfect Phil, love everything about it, noted the end loading change, fine by me, this is it, this is the track plan for me!!

I dare anyone to find fault!!!!

Thanks again,

14 minutes ago, Harlequin said:

 

Ooph! Thanks Martin!

 

As you can see there are always improvement to be made!

 

Obviously you can call the station whatever you like but I wonder if my idea for the name should have been "Lamstead" rather than "Lambstead"?

 

BTW: My leanings are always towards the GWR and obviously using Lambourn as inspiration heads in that direction so you might want to check the details of how other companies did things if you're going to set it somewhere else.

 

Not sure where this place exists, somewhere the LMS and GWR would cross over. Not keen on the southern region  ( i dont like the green livery of the coaches and most of their loco designs)  although I don't mind LNER. Might be a contentious comment eh!

22 minutes ago, Harlequin said:

It was a different thread but, yes, the end-loading dock is a bit awkward in it's current position. I put it there because Lambourn's end-loading dock seems to at the end of it's very long cattle pens siding and because it seems to me they are almost always found in the goods yard, not near the passnger areas.

 

It's is also a bit unresolved at the moment and would need to be designed properly. You could give road access to the dock, the pens and the yard in general from the south if that made it work better. There is a road passing by after all!

 

 

Good idea:

The red parts show the change with the original underneath: A large Y feeding into a medium left without the short curving section of plain track. It puts a slight wiggle in the line to the back siding but makes the curves in the sidings much more definite and the cattle pens kickback is now dead straight.

I'm not sure which I 

Think I prefer the original,  with the tracks spaced a bit further apart 

6 hours ago, Flying Pig said:

 

I think it's been said before in this thread, but imo the end dock would work better on the bay, which would then have some purpose.

 

Have you tried putting a medium Y point between the two sidings in the yard and omitting the short 1° curve?  I think that would still give the required separation and would be more compact and easier to lay neatly.

 

 

Tbh i have no idea as to what difference  that could and would make, it looks perfect as it is, that said i'm up for tweak here and there if it improves the overall operation.

As for the bay as it is, I see it as (clichéd I'm sure) parcels and news paper traffic. I feel with 4 coach trains the station is a step up or two from a very rural BLT and therfore require a slight busier timetable, increase in traffic  and with that a dedicated parcel bay. Might be a load of tosh but it kind of sits well with me!!

Interesed to hear feed back on the inclusion of the y point and any other possible tweaks, 

Thanks

5 hours ago, Harlequin said:

Hi Martin and everyone,

 

There have been lots of ideas put forward about possible industries and filling up the corner but because you said you wanted a scenic run into the station I've followed up on @clachnaharry's suggestion of doing something like Lambourn.

 

So it's an upland country station with no industry near the station throat because that would obscure the line running in. I have also resisted the urge to fill up the top right corner with any trackwork. In fact I've removed one of the kickback sidings to keep it clean.

In compensation you now have Lambourn's goods loop to make operation more interesting.

 

The other kickback siding in the goods yard is retained but now serves a large cattle dock and possibly an end-loading ramp.

 

It's not Hampton Malstead any more so I've tentatively called it "Lambstead".

 

• Don't worry about the green areas too much - they really just signify non-railway scenery and are for you to do whatever you want with.
• I've expanded to the full 3010mm width available. This is to enable revised fiddle yards to be connected. See below.
• I found that there was no point shortening the platform run round much because doing so also shortened the goods yard and the Lambourn style goods loop. So it's length hasn't changed much and it's still technically possible to run round 4 coaches - ghost images of 4 65ft coaches are shown. It just means that you can be more relaxed about where 3-coach passenger trains stop and they look good standing against the longer platform face.
• The platform face doesn't have to be that long, of course, and if it were shortened you could remove the bay and have a short kickback carriage siding like Lambourn.
• There's only one large radius turnout in use now, in the station throat to ease traffic into the curve. Orange turnouts are mediums, Green are curved and large Ys (my colour convention isn't properly worked out!).
• The loco release headhunt is 250mm long.
• Goods shunting only has to clear the double slip and that leaves a length of over 3 feet for use as headshunt so I think most of the time the loco wouldn't disappear into the fiddle yard while shunting.
• I haven't shown any paraphernalia, such as yard crane, loading gauge, PW huts, etc, etc... You'd need to think about where they go before you start the scenery.
• Hampton Malstead used a proscenium arch to hide the ends of the sidings on the left and I've done the same here to suggest the yard is bigger than we can see. A neatly boxed and lit display looks good in domestic setting (Mrs Balders might be impressed...?) but you could just have a simple backscene and terminate the sidings with buffers if you want.

Fiddle yard

I've come up with two alternative fiddle yard designs becasue you said that you'd prefer not to handle locos in the FY, David was hinting at the ability to shunt in the FY without locos appearing on scene and I was worried about locos lifts being difficult to use on the pointwork of the previous FY design.

 

• They both use traditional traversers with about 250mm travel out from the wall (using full extension drawer runners).
• They both have more consistent capacity than the previous FY design, both allow shunting entirely within the yard and both require less handling of stock than before.
• Roads are 50mm apart, on the basis that less manual handling is needed.
• Note: Road 0 can't be connected to the track leading to the scenic area - it's just extra storage and/or to help with loco movements.
• The top traverser design can contain whole trains including locos. To run round or turn a loco would need a loco lift and there are two straight headshunts to make rerailing from the loco lift easier.
• The bottom traverser design can contain trains excluding their locos. Spurs at the far end allow the loco to run off the traverser and from there they can run round without being handled at all. There are headshunts at the scenic end where locos can stand before backing onto a train.
• So the bottom design wouldn't require any stock handling and could be fully automated - but it would be quite intricate to operate!

 

Been hoping  Mr Harlequin could square the circle, he's absolutely  nailed it too. The guy is a genius. I can't imagine any alterations to that design.  It's perfect, can't wait to build it!!!!!

8 hours ago, DavidCBroad said:

Hi Balders45   The curve to the FY is about 2ft radius, that takes it to the far side of the fiddle board.  Using Peco points that means you can't really work in more than 2  X 3 coach plus loco  roads if you use GWR 63ft B set coaches with a 57ft strengthening vehicle.    I nearly got 2 X 3 coach roads but the other 2 would be very short and even then it needed a 2ft Radius Y point.  You can't link roads nearest operating well with the next as the track is already curving towards the operating well at that point and it would knock a coach off the siding length

Operation would be loco sidings the two red top ones and new loco comes on just prior to departure so as not to block points and loco changes every time.

For a Hockey stick it needs an extra 2" per road on length as the furthest road would be the nearest on the stick.  As I said it looks like a cassette yard is the pragmatic solution.

Bottom line I wasn't really getting anywhere so here is my abandoned doodle..  Best of luck

 

Edit

 

Reject 2 is getting there, the headshunt lets the incoming loco out by letting a second loco haul the stock off from siding 1 or 4 and put it  in the other long siding. Kick back and 2+3 store wagons and spare coaches and using the nearest headshunt a 5 coach or 15 wagon goods passenger can be assembled. Stuck with tank locos, possibly an Oxford Dean with short 2500 gallon tender  though. 2 loco sidings should hold 3 X panniers or 45XX  each or 2 X Deans

 

Edit

 

I am starting to like reject 2,   Fiddle yard operator would have an interesting time. not so sure about the station as the Gas works siding  is an absolute swine to shunt.   It would shift quite a bit of coal so a couple of blokes with pinch bars is a bit unlikely.  Maybe a less busy industry?  

 

 

 

 

 

 

Thanks for your input David, the FY does look interesting to operate, plenty of storage and almost a layout in itself!!!! Plenty of great ideas to mull over. Will take your thoughts on the industry, may be a brewery?? well, I do like beer

9 hours ago, DavidCBroad said:

Er  Doodle reveals only enough space for a cassette yard if you want 3 coach trains.  Sorry

Could you show me what you mean please?