Next project

[pendlerail]

I have recieved planning permission from the relevant authorities,  so a new project is in the planning stages, I have a "garden room" on order, and have a space of aprox 15' by 6', I model BR late 80s OO Gauge DCC, and have some overhead electric locos, also some shunters.

I would like a Fiddle yard and the suggestion of a station as the fy entrance at one end.

A depot or stabling point would be good also some work for shunters, a corner to the front right hand side may have to be left off for the door way, I don't have the woodwork skills for multiple levels, I have a full length MGR and 6 coach passenger trains would be adequate, what would you do with the space? 

 

[Mike Storey]

With 15 ft length available, you should be able to fit all of that in easily in 00, on a roundy roundy. But with only 6ft width, meaning curves down to 2ft6 radius, I would hide the curves at each end, as much as possible.

 

I can only suggest your scenic area on one side and your fiddle yard on the other, but you need to decide where you will operate it from - the middle, which would be very cramped unless you stick to 2ft wide boards, or from one side, which means trying to lean over a long distance, both for construction and operation. A one-sided, "dog bone" shape could make life easier, as that will narrow the main length of the board down the centre, but will shorten the fiddle yard length. Your choice.

 

Perhaps you can sketch out something on a system like AnyRail or similar, for further comments?

 

[Chimer]

2'6" scenic board, 2'6"  op well, 1' fiddle yard board (5/6 tracks) would be my first thought.  Couple of feet of platform sticking out from under a high-level station building in one corner, which should leave room for the depot further along the board.  Maybe carriage sidings to give the shunters some work to do rather than a goods yard?  Need to know more about the door in the corner (opening in or out, must it be in the corner?) and what you can live with for access (i.e. are you happy to duck under or do you need something removable/liftable?)

 

Interesting possibilities here .....

[pendlerail]

29 minutes ago, Chimer said:

 

Opens out, is in corner, takes about 1 foot off the corner (the garden room is 8 foot 2 internal with a 2 foot 2 "viewing area" the doorway covers the viewing area and about 1 foot of the layout, room not here yet so measurements are aprox 

[RobinofLoxley]

A diagram would still be useful to understand the space available

[Chimer]

Here's a starter for nothing, playing with the whole 15' x 6' ........

 

I'm thinking that the station could be operated as a terminus, or as a through station where trains can terminate and reverse.  If the terminus option were ruled out, the facing crossover (in brown) could be omitted and the approach curves smoothed out a bit.  I think everywhere will take 6 Mk 1/2 coaches.  The inner radius is 22.5" (R4).  I've no idea what a modern MPD should look like, so I've stopped with the approach track.

 

Tick any boxes?

[Mike Storey]

Looks good to me overall, if that gives you enough operational "play" value.

 

Just a few minor suggestions:

 

1. Why not move the brown, facing crossover further left, on to the straight, which means you could flex the curve more to your liking and still have the flexibility you want?

 

2. The merger of both running lines into one on the approach to the platforms would be rare on through, up and down tracks (in fact I cannot think of a single place where that is done). If you can find the space, can I suggest you keep two tracks through to the upper platforms at least? How about moving the upper right hand point to the lower track, and shortening the middle platform to allow a second track.

 

3. The lower platforms could be your terminus, which would mean you would only need two tracks to serve the right hand end of the fiddle yard. That would then give a purpose to your MPD.

 

But, it's your railway!!

 

Edited April 26, 2022 by Mike Storey

[pendlerail]

Looks good, I like the look of that, 

 

[DCB]

Looks good.  I like the way it can be operated as a terminus or through station.   The brown crossover isn't really needed as many if not most 4 platform terminus stations had 2 only arrival platforms.  Departures from all 4 were normal, M.O being terminating trains arrived and people got out swiftly after which the stock was removed to carriage sidings for cleaning  releasing the incoming loco to shed or stabling point.  Leaving a loco at the buffers while another took the train out was more steam age suburban, or "Through Terminus" Swansea or Bath Green Park.

[Chimer]

2 hours ago, Mike Storey said:

Looks good to me overall, if that gives you enough operational "play" value.

 

Just a few minor suggestions:

 

1. Why not move the brown, facing crossover further left, on to the straight, which means you could flex the curve more to your liking and still have the flexibility you want?

 

2. The merger of both running lines into one on the approach to the platforms would be rare on through, up and down tracks (in fact I cannot think of a single place where that is done). If you can find the space, can I suggest you keep two tracks through to the upper platforms at least? How about moving the upper right hand point to the lower track, and shortening the middle platform to allow a second track.

 

3. The lower platforms could be your terminus, which would mean you would only need two tracks to serve the right hand end of the fiddle yard. That would then give a purpose to your MPD.

 

But, it's your railway!!

 

 

No, it's not my railway, it might be Pendlerail's, if he liked it ...... but thanks for your comments.

 

1.  Possible, but in this situation I like the two crossovers to be obviously part of the station throat.  The further away the second one is, the more (apparent) wrong-road running is needed after it's used.  I'm sure the whole thing could flow more smoothly, but I wanted to put the suggestion up fairly quickly, without spending hours on cosmetic tweaking.  No point if the OP doesn't like the basic idea!  Noting DCB's comment, I think the brown crossover is best done away with.

 

2.  They don't merge.  Thinking of it as a through station (and noting it's not supposed to be a junction), the two upper platforms are for up (clockwise) trains and the lower two for down.  With two trailing crossovers (one theoretically out of sight at the other end of the platforms, in practice provided by the fiddle yard throat) linking up and down lines so trains in either direction can also terminate and reverse.

 

3.  That would be another approach.  But part of the idea is that the hidden curves on the right-hand side also serve as an extension to the fiddle yard, which is one reason why there are 4 of them.

 

 

Edited April 26, 2022 by Chimer

[Mike Storey]

14 hours ago, Chimer said:

 

No, it's not my railway, it might be Pendlerail's, if he liked it ...... but thanks for your comments.

 

1.  Possible, but in this situation I like the two crossovers to be obviously part of the station throat.  The further away the second one is, the more (apparent) wrong-road running is needed after it's used.  I'm sure the whole thing could flow more smoothly, but I wanted to put the suggestion up fairly quickly, without spending hours on cosmetic tweaking.  No point if the OP doesn't like the basic idea!  Noting DCB's comment, I think the brown crossover is best done away with.

 

2.  They don't merge.  Thinking of it as a through station (and noting it's not supposed to be a junction), the two upper platforms are for up (clockwise) trains and the lower two for down.  With two trailing crossovers (one theoretically out of sight at the other end of the platforms, in practice provided by the fiddle yard throat) linking up and down lines so trains in either direction can also terminate and reverse.

 

3.  That would be another approach.  But part of the idea is that the hidden curves on the right-hand side also serve as an extension to the fiddle yard, which is one reason why there are 4 of them.

 

 

 

Ok, I get the philosophy. But I would not remove the "brown" crossover. If you do, then there is no possibility of using the lower platforms for terminators. But if that does not matter, then I agree it is superfluous.

 

Another thought is that, unless automatic uncouplers are going to be used, then might the carriage sidings be better placed nearer the operator, so as not to have to lean over the entire layout every time? The MPD could then go in its place, as very little uncoupling will be involved.

 

[RobinofLoxley]

@ChimerIm just a bit puzzled about the platform lengths. I assume in the plan that the platforms themselves are extended around the curves on the RHS, but are obscured by scenery??  Taking P1 as being the lowest track in the plan, on the smallest radius, there is really room for 6 Mk1's plus a loco.

[Chimer]

5 hours ago, RobinofLoxley said:

@ChimerIm just a bit puzzled about the platform lengths. I assume in the plan that the platforms themselves are extended around the curves on the RHS, but are obscured by scenery??  Taking P1 as being the lowest track in the plan, on the smallest radius, there is really room for 6 Mk1's plus a loco.

 

Yes, absolutely.  Sort of as per the opening post, "the suggestion of a station as the fy entrance at one end" (though perhaps not quite as the OP envisaged) .  And those bottom tracks need to go all round the 180 degrees to get in the train length that's wanted.

 

6 hours ago, Mike Storey said:

 

Ok, I get the philosophy. But I would not remove the "brown" crossover. If you do, then there is no possibility of using the lower platforms for terminators. But if that does not matter, then I agree it is superfluous.

 

Another thought is that, unless automatic uncouplers are going to be used, then might the carriage sidings be better placed nearer the operator, so as not to have to lean over the entire layout every time? The MPD could then go in its place, as very little uncoupling will be involved.

 

 

Third thoughts (doh), yes the brown crossover is needed in the terminus set up to get empty coaching stock from the carriage sidings to the lower platforms.  And I was assuming hands-free uncoupling.

 

I'm going to have another play using two island platforms to see how that affects the flow .....

[Chimer]

I think this looks better, though I don't usually like keeping everything parallel ..

 

[RobinofLoxley]

I was actually questioning if the specified train would fit in P1, not agreeing. I dont like to see trains in a main station stopped with the buffer beam beyond the end of the platform, just a personal preference.

 

I agree with you about the redrawing, there was no obvious reason to have reverse curves, actually I think the small reverse curves that straighten the approach are enough.

Edited April 28, 2022 by RobinofLoxley

[Chimer]

3 hours ago, RobinofLoxley said:

I was actually questioning if the specified train would fit in P1, not agreeing. I dont like to see trains in a main station stopped with the buffer beam beyond the end of the platform, just a personal preference.

 

I agree with you about the redrawing, there was no obvious reason to have reverse curves, actually I think the small reverse curves that straighten the approach are enough.

 

I've just checked, on the last incarnation it's 87" on the inner loop from the tip of the lower platform round the 180 degree bend to the next turnout.

 

The wiggles in Mk 1 were caused by the way I went about separating the up and down lines enough to put a platform between them - but it was a quick and dirty effort.

[pendlerail]

I do like that, looks better to me. 

Thanks

 

[tractionman]

On 26/04/2022 at 18:47, Chimer said:

Here's a starter for nothing, playing with the whole 15' x 6' ........

 

I'm thinking that the station could be operated as a terminus, or as a through station where trains can terminate and reverse.  If the terminus option were ruled out, the facing crossover (in brown) could be omitted and the approach curves smoothed out a bit.  I think everywhere will take 6 Mk 1/2 coaches.  The inner radius is 22.5" (R4).  I've no idea what a modern MPD should look like, so I've stopped with the approach track.

 

Tick any boxes?

 

thiis is great!

 

you've just solved a similar quandry for me in coming up with a plan that will work for my layout (21' x 8') :-) though I shall flip the design to fit the space I have and the boards (which are in all place and have been awaiting 'progress' for 2 years!).

 

cheers,

 

Keith

[pendlerail]

Could the Carriage sidings be accessed from the station without reversing? 

[Chimer]

4 hours ago, pendlerail said:

Could the Carriage sidings be accessed from the station without reversing? 

 

Yes, but my thinking was that if the sidings were reversed, and assuming the shunter attaches to the left-hand end of the train in the station, it would trap itself against the carriage siding buffers.  So I see an ECS movement leaving the station on the down (anti-clockwise) line, reversing to propel across the slip into the sidings, the shunter leaving the coaches and working its way back to the depot via the up line and another reverse.