Jump to content

Office Space Branch Terminus


Recommended Posts

Hi all!

So I'm slowly getting back into the hobby after 15years away and wanted to create this thread to get some opinions to my upcoming project.

So for starters, I want to go back to my roots and develop (over time) a GWR layout set between 1935 and the end of WW2. I of course want to make it as realistic or 'prototypical' as possible in regards to looks, locomotives and rolling stock, but of course the main point is to have fun and have something to sink my teeth in a relax after a long days work!

 

So as I said, this layout will for now be a simple office Branchline Terminus, fictional for artistic licensing, but I want to try an make it seem as if it could have been built and ran in real life. Here below is my first rough drawing I did before really thinking about dimensions of locomotives etc. in the use of headshunts and passing loops. So therefore I made a few amendments.
image.png.e997fe8bdcce696e04fc31790c8efcc4.png
I should mention my available space is 150cm x 50cm (not including fiddle yard, my desk on the left). As mentioned previously this did not allow for the larger GWR tank loco motives and more than one Suburban Coach in the platform. Of course the scenery is not needed at this stage and merely for some visual help on my part.
I then however came up with a different plan, long than the above which would facilitate a head shunt (18cm fishplate to buffer) to be able to manoeuvre a 61xx around the passing loop and still hold 2x suburban's between pointwork of the station (70cm fishplate to fishplate). Also I slightly changed the shunting arrangement to facilitate a goods area (52cm top/47 bottom Point to buffers) on the right accessible from a fictional roadway along the front of the board from the Road Bridge scene break on the left while retaining the dual goods sidings on that left hand side.(34/35cm each) This should provide plenty of space for multiple wagons on each siding and make for interesting shunting. (Servicing a loading dock, coal stages and the like)
image.png.f18438703c776d631d221bc8ae3a3590.png
(Trackwork in AnyRail is Peco Streamline Code75 and Peco Medium Points)
After some um-ing and ahh-ing I've decided to go with 00 Gauge Peco Code 100 Streamline track (Flexi) for the track and pointwork, purely on the basis that from my brief research, Code 75 which is more 'prototypical' might have issues with both newer and my older stock (some Triang coaches, Bachmann/Hornby rolling stock and locomotives from 15+ years ago 35 if you include my Manor Class!) Should this be something I not worry about and go for the Code 75?
Point work will be controlled via servos as well as signals (yes I want to have signals, but that's for another thread in the future.) With everything being controlled in JMRI via and Arduino DCC++ EX (I'm in the IT Trade so coding seemed fun :D)

Anyway enough rambling, as I said I'm just getting back into the hobby and would like to be as realistic as possible when it comes to track arrangements and from what I've seen on GWR Branch Terminus' they are varied so this seemed adequate. 

If anyone fancies chopping and changing my layout, I'll happily attached the AnyRail6 (Trial version) file in an email attachment and ping it to you. I welcome all criticism and help!

As this is my first layout dipping back into the hobby, any helpful tips, tricks and changes people have I am more than happy to listen too. 

Edited by LittleWesternModelRailway
Link to post
Share on other sites

With a space like that I would make use of a mirror on the back and/or side walls, the front edge of the board could be faced as a dockside/retaining wall and also for more interest, get some height with a girder bridge (45°?) and or raised running lines/sidings in rear with a gradient up (like Exeter!) for a loco and one wagon at a time.....Packing it in! :locomotive:

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

Personally, I’d opt for the run round loop size as in number 2, but it feels a bit crowded in bottom right corner, maybe one siding too many, with the goods shed only really having road access from the back. It may look better to have such access from the side opposite rail access.

You could remove the goods shed road, move the shed on to the Outer siding, but extend the outer loop into a spur… maybe a dock of some kind… cattle, parcels?

That would also remove the slip, would that be there in reality? Unless you’ve already bought it!

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

Hi LWMR,

 

Its very ambitious to try to fit a usable standard gauge run round loop into ~1500mm. In similar sizes other people have used the compromise of showing only half the run round loop - the run round movement being completed in the fiddle yard.

 

Remember that in a real goods yard there is (was) enough space to allow road vehicles to load and unload from the wagons, including backing up the the goods shed doors. In many yards road vehicles were allowed to drive across sidings and that can help to fit a yard into a cramped space.

 

Technically speaking you need to trap the goods yard to protect the main line from runaway wagons. You can either do that for real in the track plan, using turnouts or "catch points" as Peco call them, or add fake trap points, or just ignore it as an accepted compromise.

 

Would it be better to angle the station the other way so that the space available splays out at the buffer stops on the right and the fiddle yard is heading more towards you, the operator, for easier access?

 

Edited by Harlequin
  • Like 2
  • Agree 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, LittleWesternModelRailway said:

manoeuvre a 61xx around the passing loop and still hold 2x suburban's between pointwork of the station (70cm fishplate to fishplate)

 

Be careful when measuring loops in this way.  Stock is generally wider than the length of the sleepers, so if the stock in the loop is positioned at the fishplate on the 'heel' end of the turnout, then you won't be able to run round.  On the real railway, the clearance point, which stock should be clear of when running round, is the point at which the 'six foot' becomes less than six foot, so the length of your loop is quite a bit less than you think.  Of course in a model, we don't need to maintain 'scale' clearances and as long as the models don't actually strike one another then that's good enough for many space starved modellers.  I'd suggest that the usable length of your loop is at least 100 mm (50 mm either end) less than shown, but that is dependent on curvature and the length of the proposed stock (between bogie pivots), so it may be necessary to test your clearances before you commit if running round a two coach train is important.

 

The same is true when measuring the lengths of your sidings, where you are again measuring from the 'heel' end of the turnout.  No issue when measuring from the 'toe' or switch end for a head-shunt.

 

I think if it was me, I'd get rid of the double slip and connect the goods shed siding directly to the run round loop.  If you were using Code 75 track, then I'd use the asymmetric three way point at about the location of the double slip, and get rid of the other point, so that your two sidings to the bottom left are a bit longer.  The final position would be to get the best balance between the length of the goods head-shunt and the two sidings: you want these to be in proportion.

  • Agree 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Harlequin said:

Hi LWMR,

 

Its very ambitious to try to fit a usable standard gauge run round loop into ~1500mm. In similar sizes other people have used the compromise of showing only half the run round loop - the run round movement being completed in the fiddle yard.

 

Remember that in a real goods yard there is (was) enough space to allow road vehicles to load and unload from the wagons, including backing up the the goods shed doors. In many yards road vehicles were allowed to drive across sidings and that can help to fit a yard into a cramped space.

 

Technically speaking you need to trap the goods yard to protect the main line from runaway wagons. You can either do that for real in the track plan, using turnouts or "catch points" as Peco call them, or add fake trap points, or just ignore it as an accepted compromise.

 

Would it be better to angle the station the other way so that the space available splays out at the buffer stops on the right and the fiddle yard is heading more towards you, the operator, for easier access?

 

Thanks for the comment, I was too thinking to remove the bottom RHS sidings to allow for a Goods Yard and traffic etc. Also, I think you are right, angling it in a different way will probably be more beneficial now, the hope was to be able to use this section on a larger layout in the future by simply attaching, but I suspect as long as I have the edge track piece set at a 90* angle on the edge, it should be fine. I'll adjust it. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, 33C said:

With a space like that I would make use of a mirror on the back and/or side walls, the front edge of the board could be faced as a dockside/retaining wall and also for more interest, get some height with a girder bridge (45°?) and or raised running lines/sidings in rear with a gradient up (like Exeter!) for a loco and one wagon at a time.....Packing it in! :locomotive:

A bit too ambitious for me right now I think! But something like this in the future when I have more space is for sure in my mind. For now I think a simple platform, goods  yard and the road bridge on the left as a scene break will show plenty of interest. As well as already a small challenge for the near future to complete. But thank you for your suggestions, I have taken note of them.

Link to post
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, ITG said:

Personally, I’d opt for the run round loop size as in number 2, but it feels a bit crowded in bottom right corner, maybe one siding too many, with the goods shed only really having road access from the back. It may look better to have such access from the side opposite rail access.

You could remove the goods shed road, move the shed on to the Outer siding, but extend the outer loop into a spur… maybe a dock of some kind… cattle, parcels?

That would also remove the slip, would that be there in reality? Unless you’ve already bought it!

So Picture 2 is the newer design from a few days ago as I realised I had more space than before (50cm more) and after doing more research realising a loop and such was needed to be an effective and interesting shunting yard.
I think I will change the Right Side as per a different comment so it's angled the other way allowing for a larger yard and a smaller siding for a cattle Dock etc while still providing access to the goods shed by road.
I have not brought the slip :D  and I think replacing with a 3way pointed left might provide better interest I will plan accordingly

Thanks for your comment!

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

Looks like an excellent project. With something so concentrated, every detail will be closely observed close up. That so, I would not use code 100. For me, it just doesn't look good enough. I would definitely user the peco bullhead track. It just looks so much better and you want this to look good. Even better would be to use templot and design and build your own track, but if you don't feel up to that, then peco bullhead is the way to go. 

Ian C

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Dungrange said:

 

Be careful when measuring loops in this way.  Stock is generally wider than the length of the sleepers, so if the stock in the loop is positioned at the fishplate on the 'heel' end of the turnout, then you won't be able to run round.  On the real railway, the clearance point, which stock should be clear of when running round, is the point at which the 'six foot' becomes less than six foot, so the length of your loop is quite a bit less than you think.  Of course in a model, we don't need to maintain 'scale' clearances and as long as the models don't actually strike one another then that's good enough for many space starved modellers.  I'd suggest that the usable length of your loop is at least 100 mm (50 mm either end) less than shown, but that is dependent on curvature and the length of the proposed stock (between bogie pivots), so it may be necessary to test your clearances before you commit if running round a two coach train is important.

 

The same is true when measuring the lengths of your sidings, where you are again measuring from the 'heel' end of the turnout.  No issue when measuring from the 'toe' or switch end for a head-shunt.

 

I think if it was me, I'd get rid of the double slip and connect the goods shed siding directly to the run round loop.  If you were using Code 75 track, then I'd use the asymmetric three way point at about the location of the double slip, and get rid of the other point, so that your two sidings to the bottom left are a bit longer.  The final position would be to get the best balance between the length of the goods head-shunt and the two sidings: you want these to be in proportion.

This is another problem I have... perception... Since right now I don't have my stock with me, it's being posted from home 1000miles away :D So all of this is open to complete change upon arrival. But knowing rough dimensions of the larger coaches and loco's I went on that basis. It may very well change when the time comes.
Would it be prudent to instead have the beginning of the loop start at a point from the edge of the board? Instead of that extra section. 

Going on your suggestions, I imagine something more like this:
image.png.6e5afc0c704a4309095be0ebb75cf7d4.png

Link to post
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, ikcdab said:

Looks like an excellent project. With something so concentrated, every detail will be closely observed close up. That so, I would not use code 100. For me, it just doesn't look good enough. I would definitely user the peco bullhead track. It just looks so much better and you want this to look good. Even better would be to use templot and design and build your own track, but if you don't feel up to that, then peco bullhead is the way to go. 

Ian C

 

 

Thanks for the suggestion, I've been shying away from Code 75 because of rumoured in compatibility with rolling stock and locomotives, especially older stuff. Is my hesitation warranted?

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
29 minutes ago, LittleWesternModelRailway said:

Thanks for the suggestion, I've been shying away from Code 75 because of rumoured in compatibility with rolling stock and locomotives, especially older stuff. Is my hesitation warranted?

I don't know because I don't have much older stock, but what I do have runs ok.

I guess it depends on your priorities. If you want it to look really good, then just use the bullhead track and any stock that won't run gets sold or sits on the shelf. If your priority is to be able to run all the stock you have, then you might have to compromise on the look of the layout wrt the track. It's obviously your choice what is most important. A niche layout such as this won't need that much stock.

Ian C

 

Edited by ikcdab
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
42 minutes ago, LittleWesternModelRailway said:

Thanks for the suggestion, I've been shying away from Code 75 because of rumoured in compatibility with rolling stock and locomotives, especially older stuff. Is my hesitation warranted?

Stock with really large wheel flanges won't run (the flanges will bump along the rail clips). However, it's very easy to change the wheels on wagons, vans and coaches - and where the old wheels are plastic it's advisable to change to modern metal wheels anyway.

 

Diesels are more problematic but do-able. Steam locos are the most difficult to change wheels but it can be done.

 

So then it's a case of where you draw the line. Do you stick with chunky Code100 to allow you to keep some cherished models whose wheels you can't change or go for Code75 and replace those old models with new ones?

 

  • Agree 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Harlequin said:

Stock with really large wheel flanges won't run (the flanges will bump along the rail clips). However, it's very easy to change the wheels on wagons, vans and coaches - and where the old wheels are plastic it's advisable to change to modern metal wheels anyway.

 

Diesels are more problematic but do-able. Steam locos are the most difficult to change wheels but it can be done.

 

So then it's a case of where you draw the line. Do you stick with chunky Code100 to allow you to keep some cherished models whose wheels you can't change or go for Code75 and replace those old models with new ones?

 

Well if newer locos >2000s are better on Code75 then it's not really an issue. I only have the one/2 from before then anyway and they can be display models it doesn't bother me. I was more wondering as to whether newer locomotives required changing or if the flanges were already shallow enough. For example, I recently purchased a Bachmann 57xx for pretty cheap. (31-901A-U01) and considering how much I paid it wont matter if it get's displayed.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, ikcdab said:

I don't know because I don't have much older stock, but what I do have runs ok.

I guess it depends on your priorities. If you want it to look really good, then just use the bullhead track and any stock that won't run gets sold or sits on the shelf. If your priority is to be able to run all the stock you have, then you might have to compromise on the look of the layout wrt the track. It's obviously your choice what is most important. A niche layout such as this won't need that much stock.

Ian C

 

I think if I had more space (and budget) I would go for the bullhead. Maybe on the future layout since this is just an office project during the current lockdown I'm stuck in over Christmas. So for now I think I will stick with the normal Code 75, perhaps over time I can transition to the bullhead but considering the cost of pointwork (and the lack of a 3-way) and current climate I just cannot warrant it right now. But thank you for your suggestions.

Edited by LittleWesternModelRailway
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
On 07/12/2021 at 08:47, LittleWesternModelRailway said:

This is another problem I have... perception... Since right now I don't have my stock with me, it's being posted from home 1000miles away :D So all of this is open to complete change upon arrival. But knowing rough dimensions of the larger coaches and loco's I went on that basis. It may very well change when the time comes.
Would it be prudent to instead have the beginning of the loop start at a point from the edge of the board? Instead of that extra section. 

Going on your suggestions, I imagine something more like this:
image.png.6e5afc0c704a4309095be0ebb75cf7d4.png

 

Sorry if this sounds critical, but here are the issues I see with the new plan:

  • You've got the station angled nicely (at exactly 6° I note!) but you haven't really used the space that it gives you to open things out.
  • You have an awkward little reverse curve now between the left hand edge and the entrance to the goods/loop.
  • The kickback sidings look a bit odd - too dense and sort of unbalancing the whole thing.
  • The track spacing of the loop conflicts with the extra spacing required by the goods shed wall. Although Streamline geometry does give you some leeway to fit the wall in it might be tight.
  • There's no room to push a few vans through the shed.
  • Your goods siding is a bit short and would have to be kept empty when shunting into the kickback sidings. So there's little room to leave vans and wagons standing.
  • The mainline isn't protected by any form of trapping on the exit.

 

To overcome some of that you could do something like this (which is a bit of a GWR BLT cliche, I know, but there are good reasons why this pattern turns up so often):

lwmr1.png.6012db7d39a8fb95b57228a483fb369a.png

  • Use Large Ys (Green) to make things smoother and give you a natural 6° turn into the station, helping lengthen the run round loop.
  • Use a double slip (Purple) to trap the yard with a small stub siding.
  • Use Small radius turnouts for the loco release crossover to gain space in the loop and/or the loco release spur.
  • Space out the goods shed line a bit to give room for the shed to sit astride the line. (Or you could go for a smaller, lineside shed...)
  • Space out the yard and use the end of the loop as your cattle dock / loading dock.
  • Abandon the awkward kickback sidings.

The run round is still a bit short, though.

 

Edited by Harlequin
  • Like 12
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

I sketched this after seeing only the first few posts of this rather busy thread. It's similar to Phil's latest but takes the goods shed siding straight off the loop.  There's a single long 'mileage' siding for all other traffic and a dashed kickback to a private site such as a feed mill or dairy in front of the fiddle yard which might be more trouble than its worth.  Not at all original - there have been a number of exhibition layouts along these lines in recent years.

 

Studio_20211207_112858.jpg.c597f1d0a56b7468fdb9fda8f6e984eb.jpg

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, Harlequin said:

 

Sorry if this sounds critical, but here are the issues I see with the new plan:

  • You've got the station angled nicely (at exactly 6° I note!) but you haven't really used the space that it gives you to open things out.
  • You have an awkward little reverse curve now between the left hand edge and the entrance to the goods/loop.
  • The kickback sidings look a bit odd - too dense and sort of unbalancing the whole thing.
  • The track spacing of the loop conflicts with the extra spacing required by the goods shed wall. Although Streamline geometry does give you some leeway to fit the wall in it might be tight.
  • There's no room to push a few vans through the shed.
  • Your goods siding is a bit short and would have to be kept empty when shunting into the kickback sidings. So there's little room to leave vans and wagons standing.
  • The mainline isn't protected by any form of trapping on the exit.

 

To overcome some of that you could do something like this (which is a bit of a GWR BLT cliche, I know, but there are good reasons why this pattern turns up so often):

lwmr1.png.ee89a10f4a7a84086d01064adbdc23e9.png

  • Use Large Ys (Green) to make things smoother and give you a natural 6° turn into the station, helping lengthen the run round loop.
  • Use a double slip (Purple) to trap the yard with a small stub siding.
  • Use Small radius turnouts for the loco release crossover to gain space in the loop and/or the loco release spur.
  • Space out the goods shed line a bit to give room for the shed to sit astride the line. (Or you could go for a smaller, lineside shed...)
  • Space out the yard and use the end of the loop as your cattle dock / loading dock.
  • Abandon the awkward kickback sidings.

The run round is still a bit short, though.

 

Thanks for the changes :) This is exactly why I posted here! I thought my area was too ambitious and after the first few comments and looking back I started to 'imagine' shunting in my mind and cam up to many difficulties. I think your proposed plan would work fine for me in Code 75.
The run around loop is a little small in design, you are right, but I can tweak in production. The head-shunt on the main platform line should be sufficient also but again we will see.
I shortened the lower right siding a little to allow for some gravelled /muddy yard area to swing in from lets say 'A Main Road' into the yard. 

It's possible I could follow Flying Pig's suggestion and add a second double slip instead of the second 'Y' point to allow for a Private Site for some added interest.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
39 minutes ago, LittleWesternModelRailway said:

It's possible I could follow Flying Pig's suggestion and add a second double slip instead of the second 'Y' point to allow for a Private Site for some added interest.

 

It would certainly make for some interesting shunting ....... :scratchhead:

Link to post
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Chimer said:

 

It would certainly make for some interesting shunting ....... :scratchhead:

For sure  :D But again, not a certainty. I want to get the plan of trackwork done before thinking about signalling and such other details. So honestly I think for now I'll decide not to include a private zone in that area.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

Hi and welcome back to the hobby. I’ve also returned  after a much longer break and am enjoying the learning process. I discovered your thread this morning and found it an uplifting read, in that you have achieved a most happy result through some excellent advice from caring, sharing, experienced modellers.

 

Phil’s final track plan is a fine prototypical representation of a GWR branch terminus and is practically the same as my own, excepting I was unable to utilise anything other than long radius points, as I’m using Peco 75 bullead, which has many promises to keep to expectant customers.

 

Have you been able to progress the layout yet? It will provide a perfect project to use current standards and perfect your modelling skills and you may even be tempted to model some scenery to complete the picture.

 

Best wishes,

 

Bill

 

Newton Regis, 1920’s to 30s GWR, 4mm, DCC

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, longchap said:

Hi and welcome back to the hobby. I’ve also returned  after a much longer break and am enjoying the learning process. I discovered your thread this morning and found it an uplifting read, in that you have achieved a most happy result through some excellent advice from caring, sharing, experienced modellers.

Hi Bill!

Thank you for your reply, I'm really happy after the discussion on this forum an have merely added an additional siding underneath the existing two from Phil's proposed track-plan (to give me Inglenook Shunting Puzzle potential).
I haven't made any build progress as of yet, awaiting the New Year and such to breathe a new spring into my step as it were. However, track has been ordered apart from the double slip and a rudimentary fiddle yard has been mocked up (see the final designs below)
image.png.593db7a2ab1a935f29f6aaf8277671d2.png


The only additional thoughts I've been making are upon control of locomotives, pointwork and other planned features. But this will come once track is here I think.
Scenery has been thought of to a minimal extent, mainly to serve as scenic breakers for the loco entry and of course a station and yard, but this is all open to interpretation of course! I want to try and scratch and kit build as well as do some 3d designing of my own in places.

I should also mention that it's quite likely in the next year or so I will move from my office into the attic/shed, allowing for this layout to become a through station, as such I plan to make the right side panel removeable and have the trackwork end close to the edge evenly spaced apart to allow for later layout additions.

Once consideration I now have is the correct use of signals and what locations to have them. Any input would be greatly appreciated and of course I plan to document the build process on this thread.

 

All the best,

J Lodge

Edited by LittleWesternModelRailway
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Great to hear from you J and with news that you’ve progressed your planning. There is plenty of signalling help on here and Stationmaster seems to appear often as an authoritative voice.

 

Signalling should be fairly straightforward here, with a starter on a post at the far left end of your platform with others for the running line being off baseboard. Goods yard will have ground signals normally with local lever frame(s). Do you envisage working or cosmetic signals?

 

If you fancy modelling point and signal control, which is an interesting topic, pop a question into your thread later on. The position of the signal cabin is normally dependent on sight lines from signalman to signal apparatus.   

 

Best,

 

Bill

 

Newton Regis, 1920’s to 30s GWR, 4mm, DCC

Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, longchap said:

Signalling should be fairly straightforward here, with a starter on a post at the far left end of your platform with others for the running line being off baseboard. Goods yard will have ground signals normally with local lever frame(s). Do you envisage working or cosmetic signals?

 

If you fancy modelling point and signal control, which is an interesting topic, pop a question into your thread later on. The position of the signal cabin is normally dependent on sight lines from signalman to signal apparatus.   

Hi Bill,

So my plan is to have working signals working in unison with the pointwork via servo point-motors and microswitches. I will for sure raise a topic in the appropriate forum section when the time comes! As knowing the best place to lay small buildings etc will be vital information for authenticity. A signal box, in this layouts case, is not an option. As traffic comes from the left edge which is hidden by a bridge, I would assume that the signal box would be on the opposite side. But I may be wrong.

 

Thanks for your interest and kind words! 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

Update on the layout :) January 2022

- Area available has slightly increased in size, allowing for a longer platform straight and loco relief.

- Because of this increase I've been able to accommodate 2x Suburban B-Set coaches and a 61xx within point to point and still allowing for clearances on both sides.

 

- Still need to locate and purchase (for non-extortionate prices) the ElectroFrog Double Slip and Asymmetric 3Way. But all other trackwork has been purchased.
- Baseboard wood has been ordered and will be cut up and assembled over the coming weekend.

 

All in all some good progress made through January, looking forward to the last week and February where the actual track laying will begin!

  • Friendly/supportive 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...