Office Space Branch Terminus

[LittleWesternModelRailway]

21 minutes ago, Harlequin said:

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

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.

 

Thank you for your honesty... I have been having difficulty coming to a happy medium between "operational potential" and "Prototypical-ness". I thought I was close with the last iteration before the bay platform. Perhaps I should deal with the nature of lack of space = small BLT and not try to add so much into it. A longer platform with a 3 siding goods yard is a decent start for such a small space.

My main concern is visual and operational interest. If I had a longer space to accommodate perhaps having a bay and larger goods area would be justified. 
- I think I will keep the Double Slip and Head-shunt and justify it but having a fictional kickback area beyond the bridge (perhaps some private companies have setup shop there).

Honestly I think  I just someone to say "Dude, here is your concept for your given space, here's how it should be"  Honestly I'm lost on trap points etc.
You mean if I was to remove the Double, have a set of points connect the yard to the loop and have a dummy trap rail between that and the mainline? In this way I wont loose siding length at all, in fact I gain just a little on each.

I felt I was getting closer to a solution but with the addition 300x100mm I feel I'm ended up at the start with design again. All else is ready, power arrangements, control, motors etc...

Edited February 10, 2022 by LittleWesternModelRailway

[Harlequin]

20 minutes ago, LittleWesternModelRailway said:

Thank you for your honesty... I have been having difficulty coming to a happy medium between "operational potential" and "Prototypical-ness". I thought I was close with the last iteration before the bay platform. Perhaps I should deal with the nature of lack of space = small BLT and not try to add so much into it. A longer platform with a 3 siding goods yard is a decent start for such a small space.

My main concern is visual and operational interest. If I had a longer space to accommodate perhaps having a bay and larger goods area would be justified. 
- I think I will keep the Double Slip and Head-shunt and justify it but having a fictional kickback area beyond the bridge (perhaps some private companies have setup shop there).

Honestly I think  I just someone to say "Dude, here is your concept for your given space, here's how it should be"  Honestly I'm lost on trap points etc.
You mean if I was to remove the Double, have a set of points connect the yard to the loop and have a dummy trap rail between that and the mainline? In this way I wont loose siding length at all, in fact I gain just a little on each.

I felt I was getting closer to a solution but with the addition 300x100mm I feel I'm ended up at the start with design again. All else is ready, power arrangements, control, motors etc...

 

[I added a sentence to my previous message - to explain why I posted like that.]

 

You're very close to a nice design - just need to tie some things down. Don't despair!

 

Visual interest comes as much from non-railway things as railway - a layout full of track and infrastructure can look very dull.

 

Operating potential vs. "correctness": This is always a problem with small BLTs. Goods operations are OK and longer sidings mean that shunting will be more intricate because you'll have to extract selected wagons from amongst others more often. Passenger operations are probably a bit dull but that's how it was in a lot of places. If you find a real place where things were more interesting then you could work out how to do something similar. One way to add interest to passenger operations is to deal with a lot of "tail traffic".

 

You've got that trap in exactly the right place!

 

[LittleWesternModelRailway]

7 minutes ago, Harlequin said:

 

[I added a sentence to my previous message - to explain why I posted like that.]

 

You're very close to a nice design - just need to tie some things down. Don't despair!

 

Visual interest comes as much from non-railway things as railway - a layout full of track and infrastructure can look very dull.

 

Operating potential vs. "correctness": This is always a problem with small BLTs. Goods operations are OK and longer sidings mean that shunting will be more intricate because you'll have to extract selected wagons from amongst others more often. Passenger operations are probably a bit dull but that's how it was in a lot of places. If you find a real place where things were more interesting then you could work out how to do something similar. One way to add interest to passenger operations is to deal with a lot of "tail traffic".

 

You've got that trap in exactly the right place!

 

I seriously appreciate your honestly.

I've been looking at branch terminus' but it seems mostly on the larger scale rather than BLT.

From where I'm standing now. I have the 3 main things I am looking for:
1. A station platform that can be used for light passenger traffic (2 b-sets max)

2. A goods area for shunting fun

3. A starter layout for getting back into the hobby, not too complicated, will look the part and simple to design and build.

Either way I will spend a little more time and adapt this latest "non Double slip" accordingly. But going off this discussion I think I shouldn't change the track work at all (maybe some angles and such) 

As for "traffic" I know mixed passenger and goods traffic was common on "one in steam" lines so that is where a lot of the operational potential will come from, this doesn't bother me. 
Merely I'm looking for suggestions as to changes that would benefit "correctness" then platform and sidings I think are long enough for what they will be used for everything else now is getting it aesthetically correct (Trap point in place, correct point-work to the yard and anything else to consider.

I've looked at a fair few goods yards so I am familiar with what aspects I need to include (gravelled/hardstanding yard for vehicles, Crane for the main siding. walk ways across tracks, road access to the yard etc.)
Really just think I need to get on with it! Get the track on the board and see if I'm happy with it. So we will see after this weekend.

 

Thanks again for your patience and honesty

 

 

[Flying Pig]

1 hour ago, Harlequin said:

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.

 

I'd go with that rather than lose it altogether.  Vans can travel as tail traffic on passenger trains which adds a bit to the play value and variety of stock - more interesting than a passenger bay in my view.

[LittleWesternModelRailway]

18 minutes ago, Flying Pig said:

 

I'd go with that rather than lose it altogether.  Vans can travel as tail traffic on passenger trains which adds a bit to the play value and variety of stock - more interesting than a passenger bay in my view.

Then do I simply model in a trap before the main line? I would like to have a bay for another nice thing to look at. Perhaps it's dedicated for parcels or Post etc. Maybe keep the length but model some sort of covered area with loading/unloading equipment etc.

Something more like this:

Edited February 10, 2022 by LittleWesternModelRailway

[Danemouth]

Since Danemouth has been the basis for your current design I think you might find it useful if I explained how I made some of the choices in its design. Please bear in mind that the current version is Mark 5 - the earlier ones never got as far as having scenery - playing trains showed major operation issues that detracted from it. Also I am ham-fisted so the design took into account my limited skillset.

 

The main reason I am happy with this version is that it is a joy to operate due in no small part to the help and advice I received on RMWeb, particularly from @Harlequin and @br2975 So:

• As @Harlequin says it's the back story. I have a strong liking for seaside terminii. Danemouth I saw as a terminus that it's Victorian promoters expected to become a major seaside town - as with many seaside schemes this never happened but does justify the road bridge being double track width (the line would have become double track if things had gone well) It also justifies the bay.
• When it comes to track less is more. The earlier versions had too much track that looked unrealistic. However what really improved this was the suggestion  by @Harlequin of putting the platforms on a gentle curve i.e. most of the track is not parallel to the baseboard edge.
• The headshunt. This is actually dual purpose, in my scenario it is not only the headshunt but when I run tender locos the way to the offstage turntable - in reality a Locolift. Also if it did not go under the bridge it would be unuseably short.
• Without a headshunt passenger trains would not be able to arrive for either main or bay platform whilst the branch goods train is shunted as you would be using the mainline as a headshunt. With two handsets and two operators trains arriving whilst shunting took place impressed viewers at exhibitions!
• Double Slip. I wanted to use large radius points. Had I not used the double slip and used two points instead the runround loop straight track would have looked improbably short. It also lengthened the sidings.
• I have two sidings but a third one would be nice - in which case I would use a three way point rather than two points to increase the siding length.

 

I have planned to rebuild Danemouth with new baseboards 30cm longer to the same plan with an additional siding. However current back and eye problems have put this on hold.

 

One suggestion - once the track is laid and wired "play trains" for several weeks - find any operational snags before any detailed scenic work takes place.

 

Hope this helps,

 

Dave

Edited February 10, 2022 by Danemouth
Spelling

[Flying Pig]

1 hour ago, LittleWesternModelRailway said:

Then do I simply model in a trap before the main line?

 

Yes, just that.  I think I would make the siding straight so there could be an end-loading dock clear of the station building.

[LittleWesternModelRailway]

2 hours ago, Danemouth said:

Since Danemouth has been the basis for your current design I think you might find it useful if I explained how I made some of the choices in its design. Please bear in mind that the current version is Mark 5 - the earlier ones never got as far as having scenery - playing trains showed major operation issues that detracted from it. Also I am ham-fisted so the design took into account my limited skillset.

 

The main reason I am happy with this version is that it is a joy to operate due in no small part to the help and advice I received on RMWeb, particularly from @Harlequin and @br2975 So:

• As @Harlequin says it's the back story. I have a strong liking for seaside terminii. Danemouth I saw as a terminus that it's Victorian promoters expected to become a major seaside town - as with many seaside schemes this never happened but does justify the road bridge being double track width (the line would have become double track if things had gone well) It also justifies the bay.
• When it comes to track less is more. The earlier versions had too much track that looked unrealistic. However what really improved this was the suggestion  by @Harlequin of putting the platforms on a gentle curve i.e. most of the track is not parallel to the baseboard edge.
• The headshunt. This is actually dual purpose, in my scenario it is not only the headshunt but when I run tender locos the way to the offstage turntable - in reality a Locolift. Also if it did not go under the bridge it would be unuseably short.
• Without a headshunt passenger trains would not be able to arrive for either main or bay platform whilst the branch goods train is shunted as you would be using the mainline as a headshunt. With two handsets and two operators trains arriving whilst shunting took place impressed viewers at exhibitions!
• Double Slip. I wanted to use large radius points. Had I not used the double slip and used two points instead the runround loop straight track would have looked improbably short. It also lengthened the sidings.
• I have two sidings but a third one would be nice - in which case I would use a three way point rather than two points to increase the siding length.

 

I have planned to rebuild Danemouth with new baseboards 30cm longer to the same plan with an additional siding. However current back and eye problems have put this on hold.

 

One suggestion - once the track is laid and wired "play trains" for several weeks - find any operational snags before any detailed scenic work takes place.

 

Hope this helps,

 

Dave

Hi Dave,

 

thanks for your input! Some great points. I haven’t really thought of a backstory until now. Which I’m currently working on (narrative isn’t a strong suit). Having or not having a headshunt doesn’t really bother me so much, it’s far more likely after conversations here and some more reading that a scale or size such as mine would be a 1 in steam line so any operation would be out onto the mainline in effect.

 

i think you are right, I’m going to keep as it is and “play trains” for some time and adjust accordingly, come up with a backstory to suit the layout and justify any amendments and changes that happen because of it.

 

i believe half of my issues are because looking at a drawing isn’t the same as seeing it in person and making changes.

[DCB]

Looks good.  I would end the tracks as close to the baseboard end as possible to maximise train length.   The stub listed as a head shunt off the double slip on earlier plans is sometimes found on BLTs built pre about 1865.  Its purpose was to allow the loco to top up its boiler by buffering up to a big solid stop block and slipping the driving wheels to operate the axle mounted boiler feed pumps.  The need for these gradually reduced with the introduction of injectors, leading to the late GWR 4 turnout station, loop and two long sidings The stubs were retained as traps so stray wagons would be stopped but not be derailed    Generally they are too short for use as a headshunt.

[LittleWesternModelRailway]

So a minor update today....

Yesterday was spent with a friend building the right hand side section of the scenic board and legs for the whole thing.

12mm plywood used for the base and the frame with some timber sections for support. Looks aesthetically pleasing and I'll grab some photos once it is completed.

For sure now having at least one half done has given me a bit more perspective as to how and what I can create. So I look forward to the finished article where I can get stencils and eventually track down, have some time to assess and make any adjustments needed.

But the important thing is... there is progress! More to come soon.

[LittleWesternModelRailway]

So another small update on the layout  Baseboards have been made and are simply waiting to be put into place. Flex Track arrived and now waiting on the last of the pointwork. Slowly but surely progress is being made. 

[LittleWesternModelRailway]

Morning all,

So another update on the layout. It has been extended by 600mm so the total now reaches 2.4m from end to end. This has allowed for the platform to also be extended and provides room for 3 Collett Suburbans + clearance of 60mm between the points (given the largest potential train size, 2800 +3 Colletts. This still allows room after long radius points for a 300mm run round at the end.

I have also separated the good yards completely from the main line, this 1) allows for more operation and 2) from my research and discussions (of course correct me if I am wrong) is more prototypical of smaller BLT's and forces the following:
- Inbound goods arrive to platform
- Shunted out of platform up the line past the point to goods yard
- Shunted into Goods Shed before eventually been re-shunted to outbound or siding


I have chosen to keep the aforementioned Parcels/Offloading bay to the top of the station for Cattle/Parcels/vehicular embark/disembarkation purposes.

The goods Yard has been reduced to a Goods Shed on siding and 2 additional siding which have both been extended due to the additional space. (1 potentially coming direct from an industry in future but still open for debate as to whether it would just connect to the main line.
My story is the line was owned by 2 companies joint to build the branch to the nearest junction for export of 2 goods (to be determined) and in the early 1900's it was acquired by the GWR for smoother running of the line and this terminus was the end of line passenger station within 1mile of one of the producers. Who's produce Is now brought to this station for export. (potentially direct to good yard?)

 

I have 2 questions regarding other features (though Rule 1 of modelling may apply):
- I've opted for a loco shed on the left side of the good area given the slightly larger nature of the layout now. Would this be a given or still considered un-necessary for a BLT like this?
- Given this is now a layout that will eventually be a full branch (I hope) I plan to have an Industry of some sort as the next scenic piece to provide "goods and services" to the line.
I have made a small kickback with a private business on location, most likely a collier or a brick export depot of some sort. Would this also be a given?

As always I welcome and criticism and potential changes to the line. I do not want to rush this build so much as it will take several months to move along. I have since decided to use Code 75 Bullhead trackwork and slowly make my own point-work using Templot (with assistance from a friend) to attempt to be more GWR typical. 

[Flying Pig]

On 14/04/2022 at 10:52, LittleWesternModelRailway said:

I have made a small kickback with a private business on location, most likely a collier or a brick export depot of some sort. Would this also be a given?

 

By 'collier' do you mean colliery?   Even a small colliery or brickworks would need more siding space than your very short kickback.  One possibility would be to continue the kickback offscene and use the two sidings you have shown for exchanging traffic with the main line company.  But that would leave you without a goods siding for mileage traffic. 

 

Instead you could lay out a relaxed and spacious goods yard with just a couple of longish sidings - one for the goods shed and one for other traffic including inbound coal.  There's no reason why outbound traffic couldn't just be carted to the yard for loading.  I would prefer this simpler approach and I think you will find the station generates enough inbound and outbound traffic to keep you interested.

 

A couple of other changes I would make

 

- make the first point on the layout the loop point and take the sidings off the loop;

- move the loco shed to the siding adjacent to the loco release to avoid movements to the shed being blocked by standing wagons.

[DCB]

Like #Flying Pig I am a bit surprised the run round loop is so short. Almost always the run round loop point is the first point you get to, and also how long the track between run round points and the buffers is, long enough for an 0-6-0 not long enough for a 2-6-0 is typical.  There is space to run round 4 X colletts if you alter the  loop.

Shunt should be arrive at platform, loco then assembles outgoing wagons and stores in loop, loco then arranges incoming wagons in the yard before shunting outgoing wagons into platform with brake van on the back and departing.

The typical BLT traffic was dominated by incoming Coal. Some had meat products factories, Tractor factories, carpet factories etc but House coal was handled in huge tonnages as between 1880 and 1960 most homes had coal fires.  More than half the siding space was generally for coal. Many branches remained open for coal deliveries after general goods ceased. I would aim for at least half the goods to be incoming house coal.   Many coal merchants had wagons painted in their own liveries pre WW2.  Wagons from  Collieries producing house coal like  "Parkend" were also a common sight.

 

Edited April 15, 2022 by DCB

[LittleWesternModelRailway]

 

22 hours ago, Flying Pig said:

 

By 'collier' do you mean colliery?   Even a small colliery or brickworks would need more siding space than your very short kickback.  One possibility would be to continue the kickback offscene and use the two sidings you have shown for exchanging traffic with the main line company.  But that would leave you without a goods siding for mileage traffic. 

 

Instead you could lay out a relaxed and spacious goods yard with just a couple of longish sidings - one for the goods shed and one for other traffic including inbound coal.  There's no reason why outbound traffic couldn't just be carted to the yard for loading.  I would prefer this simpler approach and I think you will find the station generates enough inbound and outbound traffic to keep you interested.

 

A couple of other changes I would make

 

- make the first point on the layout the loop point and take the sidings off the loop;

- move the loco shed to the siding adjacent to the loco release to avoid movements to the shed being blocked by standing wagons.

Thanks for your input, yes I meant colliery. I gathered as much, considering the space and such beforehand but now I have a little more to work with. I was going with the "kickback" could extend to the left off scene as an industry, be it what ever, and have the main line pass it on route to the station (a future scenic project perhaps).
I've since also extended the sidings with the aid of a curved point away from the goods area and added the run-around coming off of the entrance to the station rather than the platform.

 

I appreciate the honesty and criticism, it allows me to better understand the workings of a BLT. I see so many different configurations of actual stations and other peoples layouts, it's hard to settle between reality and Rule 1. However I feel very close to an end result.  

[LittleWesternModelRailway]

20 hours ago, DCB said:

Like #Flying Pig I am a bit surprised the run round loop is so short. Almost always the run round loop point is the first point you get to, and also how long the track between run round points and the buffers is, long enough for an 0-6-0 not long enough for a 2-6-0 is typical.  There is space to run round 4 X colletts if you alter the  loop.

Shunt should be arrive at platform, loco then assembles outgoing wagons and stores in loop, loco then arranges incoming wagons in the yard before shunting outgoing wagons into platform with brake van on the back and departing.

The typical BLT traffic was dominated by incoming Coal. Some had meat products factories, Tractor factories, carpet factories etc but House coal was handled in huge tonnages as between 1880 and 1960 most homes had coal fires.  More than half the siding space was generally for coal. Many branches remained open for coal deliveries after general goods ceased. I would aim for at least half the goods to be incoming house coal.   Many coal merchants had wagons painted in their own liveries pre WW2.  Wagons from  Collieries producing house coal like  "Parkend" were also a common sight.

 

Thank you for your input, It's greatly appreciated. I have amended the design (as per the above comment) to move the Run-Around loop closer to the entrance point of the layout.
Considering I have decided to go into the deep-end and plan the point-work and build myself using Templot as a guide. This has given me more time to get familiar with that program.

There was always going to be an outside influence for the layout, 9/10 it was going to be Coal production/Usage (a powerplant or something on those lines) so a lot of the traffic will be Goods or mixed trains with tailing coal loads etc. A few merchant wagons and of course colliery wagons. 
I've taken your thoughts into consideration and believe the above plan now accommodates more a more realistic track-plan and allows for better operations given an industry in the area. Spending so much time trying to perfect a layout while looking at real life examples has been difficult in my space. I hope that this iteration is relatively  realistic but it also helps when it comes to expanding the branch later (having an industry scene off to the left)

[wagonman]

Sorry to rain, or at least drizzle, on your parade, but collieries usually had exchange sidings or at least connected to the main line directly – Camerton Colliery is a good example of a small pit that survived to the early '50s. They also had landsale depots which took care of the local market for domestic coal. Might I suggest a quarry instead? Or a paper mill? Or a tweed mill – like Bliss's at Chipping Norton (you don't have to model the mill!)? Something that creates rail traffic, preferably with PO wagons, without dominating the traffic flow and putting your local coal merchant out of business.

 

 

[LittleWesternModelRailway]

19 hours ago, wagonman said:

Sorry to rain, or at least drizzle, on your parade, but collieries usually had exchange sidings or at least connected to the main line directly – Camerton Colliery is a good example of a small pit that survived to the early '50s. They also had landsale depots which took care of the local market for domestic coal. Might I suggest a quarry instead? Or a paper mill? Or a tweed mill – like Bliss's at Chipping Norton (you don't have to model the mill!)? Something that creates rail traffic, preferably with PO wagons, without dominating the traffic flow and putting your local coal merchant out of business.

 

 

Hi Richard! No need to worry about raining! It was a simple idea for an industry in itself, not neccesarily a colliery  I originally had plans for a Brick Works! Point being, it will be to create traffic as export of something and import coal loads for useage not export, after some considerations from other posts here.

I've actually spent this weekend learning how to use Templot and also more time looking at other BLTs and have sort of tweaked my layout accordingly, after some more research I will post the results here for discussion.

Thank again!