Office Space Branch Terminus

[LittleWesternModelRailway]

So a January 2022 Update!

The final considerations for baseboard building and track-plans have been made, and this is the outcome!

 

Now with a little more space, I've extended the entire board(s) to 1800mm x 500mm. I've thus been able to make use of this new found space to extend the platform track to around 900mm easily able to accommodate the largest branch locomotives and 2 coaches I could imagine being here and, up to 70mm of clearance on each side at the pointwork. It's also allowed me a 300mm loco relief and 500mm run around loop with larger head-shunt on either end. (a Hall Class/Mogul with 2 B-Set Suburban's. Or a 45xx with 2 Auto-Coaches).

(IF there is another Branch loco that comes to your mind that's larger than a Hall or Mogul then please let me know. But I think 900mm is plenty of room.)

 

I've been able to retain a decent size yard and the 'Inglenook' shunting section I want to incorporate but still having to use a Double Slip and Asymmetric 3-way to achieve this. (hardest things to find for decent prices)
I've allocated Signal positioning for the platform line and run around as well as smaller shunting signals for sidings and loco relief points. The Signalbox has been moved to the end of the platform closest to the layouts entrance on the left. 

After quick discussion on RM regarding branch manoeuvres. it seems on a terminus this small it would be rare for more than 1 locomotive to be present at anyone time, and a "token" system would likely be used for the line. As such, I will replicate this in model form (but play time I will do what I want :D).

 

Anyway, baseboard wood has been ordered! Any comments, please leave them

Cheers. 

[Harlequin]

Hi, I'm afraid that reality clashes uncomfortably with what we would like to do in our models again: A tiny little BLT like this is very unlikely to ever have seen a Hall - and probably not a Mogul either.

 

It's all about "route availability". GWR locos were assigned to coloured groups, depending on a combination of how big they were, how heavy and how much weight rested on individual axles. The groups were indicated by coloured discs on the side of the cabs.

 

The loco groups were Red, Blue, Yellow and "uncoloured" and all the GWR lines were assigned the same codings (with some overlaps and special cases), indicating what locos were allowed to run on them.

 

Your branch line would probably have been Yellow rated.

 

Halls were Red, meaning they could only normally work on Red routes (and "Dotted red" routes at low speed). Moguls were Blue, the next group down. Example locos in the Yellow category are; Dean goods, Dukedogs, small Prairie tanks, small Pannier tanks.

 

[LittleWesternModelRailway]

1 hour ago, Harlequin said:

Halls were Red, meaning they could only normally work on Red routes (and "Dotted red" routes at low speed). Moguls were Blue, the next group down. Example locos in the Yellow category are; Dean goods, Dukedogs, small Prairie tanks, small Pannier tanks.

Thanks for that info  It was merely an observation based on the shedding allocations around the branch I plan to emulate in future that this layout will become a through station for later in life. (Castle Cary - Weymouth Line) This is probably not the "proto-typical" way of doing it but for logistics sake I think I can take the hit.

The Idea was to create this layout with ease of conversion to a through line rather than an End 2 End and have it as a station along my future planned recreation of a section the Branch from Castle Cary to Weymouth. (Fictional Station along real route, with my main section being a scaled recreation of Castle Cary Junction in the 30's/40's.
As you can see from the left and right sides I've tried to make it so that a small adjustment to track length and angles when that project will begin should allow seamless transitions.

My only factor is I need to move the goods sidings slightly further to allow for up and downline traffic on 2 platforms rather than the one. But other than that I thought I had it figured out.

I think perhaps for sake of argument, DukeDogs, Deans and Collett's are likely the only Tender Locos to be seen. I was merely trying to assess my "largest possible load".

If this type of layout were a through rather than a Terminus, could I get away with a Red/Blue Axle Classification? Or what would you think it would require, for prototypical-ness...

Thanks Phil! Appreciate your explanations

[Dungrange]

2 hours ago, LittleWesternModelRailway said:

As you can see from the left and right sides I've tried to make it so that a small adjustment to track length and angles when that project will begin should allow seamless transitions.

My only factor is I need to move the goods sidings slightly further to allow for up and downline traffic on 2 platforms rather than the one. But other than that I thought I had it figured out.

 

Is this future branch line to be single or double track?  If single, is there a need for passenger trains to pass at this location?  If not, then you don't necessarily need a second platform.

 

However, if the branch line is to be double track, then I agree that you need a second platform.  However, fitting your second platform is not the only problem.  Firstly, traffic moving left to right will then have a facing cross-over, and facing access to the goods yard, which I don't think was common in your time period.  The other problem is flank protection of the goods yard.  At the moment, your double slip stops any potential runaway wagon from reaching a passenger line (because it would be routed to the head shunt), but if one of the routes through the double slip is a passenger line, then you'll need space to create a new trap point between the double slip and the three way point.  You'll also lose the headhunt, so all shunting of the goods yard will involve shunting out on the mainline, although that may not be a major issue if branch traffic is relatively light.

 

As the terminus of a branch line, I see no issues for typical motive power and coaching stock.

[LittleWesternModelRailway]

7 hours ago, Dungrange said:

 

Is this future branch line to be single or double track?  If single, is there a need for passenger trains to pass at this location?  If not, then you don't necessarily need a second platform.

 

However, if the branch line is to be double track, then I agree that you need a second platform.  However, fitting your second platform is not the only problem.  Firstly, traffic moving left to right will then have a facing cross-over, and facing access to the goods yard, which I don't think was common in your time period.  The other problem is flank protection of the goods yard.  At the moment, your double slip stops any potential runaway wagon from reaching a passenger line (because it would be routed to the head shunt), but if one of the routes through the double slip is a passenger line, then you'll need space to create a new trap point between the double slip and the three way point.  You'll also lose the headhunt, so all shunting of the goods yard will involve shunting out on the mainline, although that may not be a major issue if branch traffic is relatively light.

 

As the terminus of a branch line, I see no issues for typical motive power and coaching stock.

Thanks for your input

 

So my main take away was exactly that, for future this would be a through station on my larger layout. The Castle Cary - Weymouth Branch from my research has sections that are single tracked even though some stations, so to me it was viable. However it does also seem that it was single track until hitting stations where 2 separate platforms for up and downline traffic would stop. (The likes of Yetminster, Dorchester West, Maiden Newton) So it's possible that without having 2 platforms, this current layout is pretty far from being able to represent a Red or Blue route. 

I think for now, instead of a redesign to accommodate dual platforms, dual goods yard entrances and cut off. I had a little play with the current layout but I think my available space is still too small to fully utilise the aspects I would like to reflect. But here it is anyway.

 

I've added a medium radius point on the Up line to CC from Weymouth (this will have been split from a single line just off the baseboard at each end) Making a passing section for goods coming up to move to the lower portion away from the mainline which is still protected by the double slip. The original Y point entrance could be still a single point of access meaning the lower section below it would not go off the board and allow room for shunting. 

But perhaps I am being too ambitious  

All of this feedback is great, it means I am more prepared for the future. I think I will stick to what I have now, A Yellow Weighted Single Line Branch Terminus, and wonder about the larger layout in the future

[LittleWesternModelRailway]

Hey all, happy Feb 2022! So finally this weekend the baseboard will be built..

Again I have made some amendments trying to incorporate more operational enjoyment and "things to see and do". 

I wanted to get input from you guys as having more experience than myself!

Looking at a plan Phil designed for "Danemouth - A Seaside BLT (Not knowing the size of the baseboard for it, I 'Adapted' some things to my layout.

I've been able to extend my layout to 1800mm x 600mm giving a little more room in each direction, this has allowed for measure clearances, large enough loco relief in the station and a slightly better planned goods yard without the need for a 3-way asymmetric point.

Please take a look at the new proposed layout and provide any critics and changes you can think of. 

Thanks in advance! Can't wait to get building!

[Danemouth]

The size of Danemouth including Fiddleyard is 12' by 2' (3600 by 600 mm) - the scenic area is just under 9' long

 

Dave

[LittleWesternModelRailway]

Thanks Dave, mine works out at roughly 6'x2' without fiddle yard. I'm actually quite happy with the above setup. 
If my calculations are correct, I should easily fit 2 suburban B-Set coaches and loco  in the platform, still allowing space for loco relief. Then in the bay I should be able to fit after pointwork, a auto-coach + locomotive.

And I've been reading up on your layout too, it looks fantastic! Gave me some great inspiration!

[woodenhead]

You've got a lot of sidings there

 

What's the porposed purpose of the siding that butts up to the goods shed?  A real railway wouldn't have that when the track right next to in into the goods shed could be used for the same purpose.

 

The three lower sidings could be covered by just two sidings - the green siding is about the same length as the point to it - doing away with the green siding and replacing the point with plain track would lose you no siding space.

 

As a small terminus, you may not actually need a headshunt, there won't be much traffic so shunting could be done onto the main in between passenger services arriving and departing.

 

I assume the little red/green dots on the sidings are shunt signals - goods yards would be worked by hand operation of the points apart from the entry to the main which would be under the control of the signal box.

[LittleWesternModelRailway]

Awesome, thanks for the input. The additional siding next to the goods yard was purely for "More Shunting Fun"  
Something like this perhaps?

Perhaps removing the point from the goods shed siding in general would be a good idea. allowing to move the good shed up slightly and giving more room behind for "already emptied/yet to be loaded" wagons

So is doing away with the head-shunt off the board is worth thinking about? and what about the double slip, is it needed? Could I replace it with a Medium LH point if the head-shunt isn't really required?

and what about the additional of Bay with slight offset siding? For me I think it's a viable addition. But opinions are welcome.

Edited February 9, 2022 by LittleWesternModelRailway

[woodenhead]

A double slip is an expensive addition on either a real or model railway, if it's not justified the expense would not be incurred.  Unless you need to be shunting wagons whilst another train is traversing the main then at most you need is a catch point to stop any runaways from the sidings and your medium point.

 

You also have the option to extend those bottom two sidings slightly and gain more wagon space

[Harlequin]

2 minutes ago, woodenhead said:

A double slip is an expensive addition on either a real or model railway, if it's not justified the expense would not be incurred.  Unless you need to be shunting wagons whilst another train is traversing the main then at most you need is a catch point to stop any runaways from the sidings and your medium point.

Yes, but in a space this small the double slip can represent what in the real world would have been two turnouts or a turnout and a trap point. It's a compression feature.

 

2 minutes ago, woodenhead said:

 

You also have the option to extend those bottom two sidings slightly and gain more wagon space

Yes, I don't understand why the sidings are so short. Imagine road vehicles coming into the yard from the side and maybe driving around or even over the sidings to reach the desired wagons.

 

[Dungrange]

On 25/01/2022 at 08:15, LittleWesternModelRailway said:

I've added a medium radius point on the Up line to CC from Weymouth (this will have been split from a single line just off the baseboard at each end) Making a passing section for goods coming up to move to the lower portion away from the mainline which is still protected by the double slip. The original Y point entrance could be still a single point of access meaning the lower section below it would not go off the board and allow room for shunting. 

 

The double slip was originally added to your plan to prove flank protection - ie to remove the risk of a runaway goods wagon colliding with a passenger train.  However, when you add a second platform (which presumably serves up passenger trains to Castle Cary) the double slip no longer provides the flank protection that it does when you have just one passenger platform.  This is because your point of conflict between an errant goods vehicle an a passenger train becomes the double slip itself. 

 

Assuming the loop that you have added behind the new up platform is not a passenger line, then there will need to be trap points at either end: one between the double slip and entry to the goods yard and a second where the loop comes off the up line.  However, if the loop may also be used by passenger trains, then there would be no trap points on the loop, but you would need a trap point between the access to the yard and the three way point.

 

15 minutes ago, LittleWesternModelRailway said:

So is doing away with the head-shunt off the board is worth thinking about? and what about the double slip, is it needed? Could I replace it with a Medium LH point if the head-shunt isn't really required?

 

Whether a head-shunt is needed depends on the way in which you wish to operate the layout.  In reality, the facilities provided would be the minimum required for the number of trains run.  If the station is at the end of a 'one engine in steam' branch-line, then there would be no need for a head-shunt.  Shunting would just use the single track approach line.  The benefit that the double slip offers is that it permits the arrival or departure of a passenger train whilst shunting is in progress.  Since your lower sidings look like they can only accommodate a couple of wagons, the general 'feel' of the plan is that the station probably doesn't see that much freight traffic on a typical day.  On that basis, getting rid of the double slip and just using a medium point and a trap point to protect the passenger line would probably be more realistic, but as @Harlequin has stated, the double slip will take up less space that a turnout and trap point.

[LittleWesternModelRailway]

1 minute ago, Harlequin said:

Yes, I don't understand why the sidings are so short. Imagine road vehicles coming into the yard from the side and maybe driving around or even over the sidings to reach the desired wagons.

 

So extend the Sidings. It's okay to have points where vehicles drive over tracks to reach the goods area? Or am I missing something?

Something more like this measurements are now 650mm in each siding. 

I appreciate all the help you guys are providing, very good information.

 

[LittleWesternModelRailway]

3 minutes ago, Dungrange said:

 

The double slip was originally added to your plan to prove flank protection - ie to remove the risk of a runaway goods wagon colliding with a passenger train.  However, when you add a second platform (which presumably serves up passenger trains to Castle Cary) the double slip no longer provides the flank protection that it does when you have just one passenger platform.  This is because your point of conflict between an errant goods vehicle an a passenger train becomes the double slip itself. 

So I've done away with the idea of a Up and Down line through station and I'm sticking to a End Terminus, I was aiming for a Red Axle Weight class branch line (Like Castle Cary to Weymouth was classified back in the day) but based on my available space and such I believe the earlier estimate of Blue or more likely Yellow is more appropriate.

I would of course prefer more than one engine under steam but I fear space does not provide that accommodation.

How do you expect point-work would look like to make this a reality, to remove the double slip and allow for dual direction traffic? As I'm having a hard time picturing it. (If you have the time of course) 

Greatly appreciate all help guys.

 

[Dungrange]

What is the purpose of the kick-back from the bay platform?  It looks like this can only be accessed by driving into the bay and then reversing and it doesn't look like it would hold any more than a brake van and a single wagon, with the brake van being trapped at the buffers.

[LittleWesternModelRailway]

10 minutes ago, Dungrange said:

What is the purpose of the kick-back from the bay platform?  It looks like this can only be accessed by driving into the bay and then reversing and it doesn't look like it would hold any more than a brake van and a single wagon, with the brake van being trapped at the buffers.

Honestly not sure why... I liked the idea of having a space there in case some loco was left on yard overnight for some reason or another. Track measures 250mm.

I was going off Danemouth (Pictured above) where it had a bay and a kickback also. Surprisingly the layout is very similar to what I had in mind when designing this, and that was 3-4 years ago!
Easily removed though, thanks.

Edited February 9, 2022 by LittleWesternModelRailway

[Danemouth]

1 hour ago, LittleWesternModelRailway said:

I was going off Danemouth (Pictured above) where it had a bay and a kickback also. Surprisingly the layout is very similar to what I had in mind when designing this, and that was 3-4 years ago!
Easily removed though, thanks.

 

To be honest I hardly ever use this siding, I have an Syphon in it most of the time. If you do remove it the bay will need a trap point, which would send any vehicle rolling out of the bay into the signal box

 

Dave

[LittleWesternModelRailway]

3 hours ago, Danemouth said:

 

To be honest I hardly ever use this siding, I have an Syphon in it most of the time. If you do remove it the bay will need a trap point, which would send any vehicle rolling out of the bay into the signal box

 

Dave

Honestly I’ve since removed it for lack of what to use it for :) I think the bay is enough, I’m now trying to use Medium radius points to correctly replace the double slip, to allow the goods shed and double siding to be completely separated from the mainline and run around loop.

So perhaps the kickback before the bay is purely there as a trap point? regardless of being used or not?

Edited February 9, 2022 by LittleWesternModelRailway

[St Enodoc]

6 hours ago, LittleWesternModelRailway said:

So extend the Sidings. It's okay to have points where vehicles drive over tracks to reach the goods area? Or am I missing something?

Something more like this measurements are now 650mm in each siding. 

I appreciate all the help you guys are providing, very good information.

 

On a 6' x 2' board I think I'd stick to just two goods sidings not 3 - particularly if you've shortened their length by removing the double slip.

[LittleWesternModelRailway]

7 hours ago, St Enodoc said:

On a 6' x 2' board I think I'd stick to just two goods sidings not 3 - particularly if you've shortened their length by removing the double slip.

So last night I played with 2 ideas:
First, including the Double Slip and retaining that Kickback on the bay platform to act as runoff and, retaining 2 lower sidings of 750 & 620mm respectivly.
The second was without the Double slip, to have a points cross over how I imagine it would be IRL without it.
reducing the sidings to 620mm each but retaining ability to hold up 7 wagons in each.
 

But I am assuming I would need a catch-point between the good yard and the mainline, between the run-around -> yard points?

Thanks again for all the help.

 

James 

[Chimer]

2 hours ago, LittleWesternModelRailway said:

 

But I am assuming I would need a catch-point between the good yard and the mainline, between the run-around -> yard points?

 

No, the headshunt point acts as the trap.

[Flying Pig]

3 hours ago, LittleWesternModelRailway said:

But I am assuming I would need a catch-point between the good yard and the mainline, between the run-around -> yard points?

 

RMweb has a bit of a thing about trap points, but they're actually quite hard to replicate with ready to lay track, because they simply aren't available in enough varieties to match the prototype.  A browse through photos will show that a trap was often just a pair of switches that took up very little room and were not infrequently cunningly combined with other pointwork.  That just can't be done with Peco, leading to situations like your bay, where a complete point takes up half the siding, not to mention introducing a common crossing that would have to be maintained to passenger standards - an expense the Real Railway would want to avoid.

 

The best solution in many cases is to leave out the rtr points and make dummy non-working traps from bits of rail.  It doesn't matter that you don't have functioning traps, because no-one is really going to get hurt if your stock runs away.

[LittleWesternModelRailway]

1 hour ago, Chimer said:

 

No, the headshunt point acts as the trap.

So would you say this configuration was how it would look without a space saving double slip?. I will leave the head-shunt in this case.

[Harlequin]

You seem to be jumping around between options and not really getting closer to a final solution!

 

Edit: Knowing more about why the real railway was the way it was should help you home in on a target that satisfies you. It's good to do some research but here are some pointers.

On the real railway the main running line, that's just the single line arriving into the platform and ending before the loco release crossover, would be passenger rated. That means it is protected in extra ways to ensure the safety of the travelling public. Any facing points on the passenger rated line need to have Facing Point Locks. Any connection into that passenger rated line need to have some protection to prevent vehicles running onto it by accident - the trap points. Neither FPLs or trap points need to be functional in a model - they are just bit you need to model to make the trackwork look right.

 

The headshunt is very unusual for a small BLT - there's usually no need for it because there are miles and miles of empty track leading to the station! You could perhaps say that the headshunt is actually part of a larger yard than we can see and there are more imaginary sidings beyond the bridge. That might work.

 

The bay platform is also fairly unusual for a small BLT - they usually just didn't have the traffic levels to justify them. Maybe you can justify it with a reasonable back story but it might always feel "contrived" and my advice would be to either abandon it, allowing the platform to be longer or perhaps replace with a short end-loading siding. Goods only, so would need a trap in the siding and an FPL in the facing points, which some might say is more infrastructure than you'd usually find at a small station but again a reasonable back-story can justify it. A dummy trap modelled on the outside rail just before the siding joins the main line.

 

If you want to keep the headshunt then I don't see why you shouldn't use the double slip. It's perfectly reasonable to find such things at small stations if the situation and evolution of the track plan required such a thing, although they were not common. That gives you precious extra space for your goods yard and that's really important for making the layout look good and be fun to use.

 

If you abandon the headshunt then it might be best not to use the slip. Just a set of points joining yard to loop with another dummy trap on the outside rail.

 

Edited February 10, 2022 by Harlequin