Any enlargement suggestions

[barney121e]

Hi

 

So my current plan, a 6x4 is below. I now might be able to enlarge layout to 8x4 (and maybe 10x4). Apart from extending the station tracks, is there anything else anyone might suggest? Unfortunately can't change the 4 foot side.

[ITG]

Might depend on what era you are modelling in terms of appropriate stock, but If you wanted to largely preserve what you have, how about either….

1 adding a branch line from the bay platform, to a small branch station. 
or 

2. extending either of the two spurs at the top to an industrial site.

 

Both/either of the above would add operational interest.

[Colin_McLeod]

Any enlargement suggestions

 

Careful if you are using Google for ideas. 😄

[Graham108]

If you extend to the left you could join the 2 sidings into hidden loops for variety of stock

[barney121e]

39 minutes ago, ITG said:

Might depend on what era you are modelling in terms of appropriate stock, but If you wanted to largely preserve what you have, how about either….

1 adding a branch line from the bay platform, to a small branch station. 
or 

2. extending either of the two spurs at the top to an industrial site.

 

Both/either of the above would add operational interest.

It is a run what i like layout to be honest, mainly diesels and dmu's on a BR heritage line. The two spurs at the top are to store trains off scene. Intrigued by idea one, where would you run it?

[barney121e]

24 minutes ago, Graham108 said:

If you extend to the left you could join the 2 sidings into hidden loops for variety of stock

Do you mean the bottom and top siding?

[Graham108]

46 minutes ago, barney121e said:

Do you mean the bottom and top siding?

Yes - the outer sidings on your plan. It might then be better if the terminal platform is joined to the main loop - ST226 on the bottom right.

Edited May 22, 2022 by Graham108
Additional comment

[Flying Pig]

4 hours ago, barney121e said:

Hi

 

So my current plan, a 6x4 is below. I now might be able to enlarge layout to 8x4 (and maybe 10x4). Apart from extending the station tracks, is there anything else anyone might suggest? Unfortunately can't change the 4 foot side.

 

If extending to eight feet, I would just add the extra length to the platforms and the storage loops at the back for longer trains, without any new features.

[ITG]

1 hour ago, barney121e said:

It is a run what i like layout to be honest, mainly diesels and dmu's on a BR heritage line. The two spurs at the top are to store trains off scene. Intrigued by idea one, where would you run it?

Well, I guess - particularly if you could stretch to 10’ - it would probably be little more than curve back (a letter C) towards the top of the new board. Maybe even on a slight incline upwards, which may even allow the spur top left to extend under the new branch station to enable longer and/or more storage space? Haven’t calculated incline gradient though, although if operating DMUs should be doable. You could even automate a passenger only shuttle service between existing bay and new branch. Maybe even actually mount the new branch station above the existing storage roads? 
What’s practical may depend on where you have access to? Which sides of the current 6x4 are reachable? Are any up against a wall?

[DCB]

Lengthening it around the mid point sounds good to me. Train length can't be more than 2 bogie coaches so 8 X 4 would allow easy 3 or 4 coaches.  I would tweak the goods yard and maybe go for an island platform, plus remove the point from main line to shed, both in full size and model its a recipe for derailment.   See doodles.  If you went 10ft  I would have the end foot or so for a dock or branch terminus, but that's a whole new ball game so maybe a blue skies rethink after reading a few CJ Freezer 60 Plans for small railways, 60 plans for large railways etc.

[barney121e]

Thanks for all the replies. Settled on 8x4, and think the plan works for me with just being extended, although some of the ideas were really interesting.

[Flying Pig]

Would it be possible to use curved points for the crossover into the goods yard? That would give you a shade more length for the inner platform but I don't know whether the geometry would work. Or whether shunting across them would be asking for trouble.

[Lacathedrale]

IMO no need for a separate shunting neck for the goods yard for a station this size. You could model a trap point if it wanted to properly represent how the prootype would have done things.  Removing the shunting neck, maybe it would be possible to shift the station's two R/H turnouts (the double track entry and the goods yard entry) counter-clockwise with the use of curved turnouts to give you a) a longer goods yard, and b) longer platforms

 

 

 

 

[barney121e]

1 hour ago, Lacathedrale said:

IMO no need for a separate shunting neck for the goods yard for a station this size. You could model a trap point if it wanted to properly represent how the prootype would have done things.  Removing the shunting neck, maybe it would be possible to shift the station's two R/H turnouts (the double track entry and the goods yard entry) counter-clockwise with the use of curved turnouts to give you a) a longer goods yard, and b) longer platforms

 

 

 

 

Now i'm confused by what you mean.

[Chimer]

2 hours ago, barney121e said:

Now i'm confused by what you mean.

The "shunting neck" (aka "headshunt") is the siding curving round inside the oval on the right hand side, which enables you to do a bit of shunting in the goods yard without fouling the main line, so another train can circulate while you shunt.  In the real world at a small station, it probably wouldn't exist, as fouling the main isn't a problem on a quiet line.  In our model world, it's something I like as it gives added interest to operations.

 

Assume you've got a freight train running anti-clockwise and you want to drop off a couple of wagons and pick up others.  Without the headshunt, you would stop the train in the upper platform road and leave most of the wagons there while you solved the shunting problem.  You would need to keep working backwards and forwards across the pointwork at the right-hand side of the station so you wouldn't be able to do anything else.  Whereas with a headshunt .......

 

You would stop the train beyond the station and back the entire train into the yard (into an empty or almost empty siding would be best).  You would then do your shuffling back and forwards using the headshunt, and trains could continue to circulate on the main line in both directions.  For my money, you need at least one more siding in the yard for this to work well, as the fun of a shunting problem for me is leaving specific wagons in specific places (vans in the goods shed, coal wagons by the staithes, cattle trucks by the cattle dock etc).

 

Incidentally I think you've arrived at the right conclusion regarding extending to 8'.  But 10' might offer different opportunities!

[Flying Pig]

19 hours ago, Chimer said:

You would stop the train beyond the station and back the entire train into the yard (into an empty or almost empty siding would be best).  You would then do your shuffling back and forwards using the headshunt, and trains could continue to circulate on the main line in both directions.  For my money, you need at least one more siding in the yard for this to work well, as the fun of a shunting problem for me is leaving specific wagons in specific places (vans in the goods shed, coal wagons by the staithes, cattle trucks by the cattle dock etc).

 

The practical difficulty with a headshunt arranged like this is that you need to use one of the sidings to get in and out of the yard and that is very limiting on a layout with only a small yard and short sidings.  If shunting while another train circulates is a must have, then perhaps a facing connection to the headshunt is a better option as it allows the goods to get inside without impinging on the sidings.  I think there may have been prototype examples of such an arrangement, but it certainly wasn't the most common.  No headshunt would have been typical as @Lacathedrale says. 

[RobinofLoxley]

Curved points, which would be setrack curved points not streamline, arent terribly reliable in my experience

[Lacathedrale]

Yes, I meant to say that Streamline curved points are fine but Setrack are a no-no.  I would also consider removing the headshunt in the far bottom left - too many zig-zags for it to be fun IMO. Just a siding behind the platform (loading dock?) would be sufficient.

 

I fundamentally disagree that you need a separate headshunt for 'more interest' unless as Flying Pig says, some desire for watching trains go around in circles is desired. In the real world goods trains would need to shunt out of the way of passenger trains.

 

Working signals for entry into the platforms and the single line sections beyond could add interest.

 

Getting the goods train safely in a siding before running a passenger train through could add interest.

 

Detaching head or tail traffic from a clockwise train for pickup by an anticlockwise train could add interest.

 

Using a platform road as a siding for an inglenook game could add interest.

[Chimer]

5 minutes ago, Lacathedrale said:

I fundamentally disagree

 

No-one's arguing with you.  I just explained the options and the implications, as the OP said you'd confused him!

[barney121e]

Can i ask what a trap point is?

 

[Lacathedrale]

A trap or catch point is one which unlike a normal point does not route traffic to a usable siding, but is rather used to derail stock should it run away towards a passenger carrying line. This is a board of trade requirement for any connection to a running line AFAIK.

[barney121e]

17 minutes ago, Lacathedrale said:

A trap or catch point is one which unlike a normal point does not route traffic to a usable siding, but is rather used to derail stock should it run away towards a passenger carrying line. This is a board of trade requirement for any connection to a running line AFAIK.

So like this.

[Lacathedrale]

Yes, if you want one.

[DCB]

The streamline curved point is 5ft and 2ft 6" radius and far too big for 8 X 4. I tightened one up and posted on here about it but it's advanced bodgery and not recommended to beginners.   Live frogging set track curved points  works well and transforms them but that is even more advanced bodgery.

The single blade catch points as modelled by Peco at yard entries are really a model railway feature, you very seldom find them on the full size railway as the catch blades are often  integrated into other point work or very discreet.     They are usually found on double track gradients to stop trains which have stalled and are running back.   

A short trap, a very short siding with a good stop block is more useful as it stops runaways without derailing them which makes it much easier to get things running again , people often mistake a short trap on a signalbox diagram for a headshunt.  As drawn the original "Headshunt" would be just about useless as a Headshunt but would make a handy kick back for when Bachmann introduce the DCC  shunting horse. However its your layout so you can use a Smokey Joe, or a planet diesel, or a class 68 or maybe a Snowdon Mountain 0-4-2 in 0/ 16.5 as your station pilot.  Admittedly the purists will never communicate with you  again so that's an added bonus.

Edited May 27, 2022 by DCB
Add pic

[Harlequin]

It is possible to build a layout using Streamline turnouts in your available space if you want to take a step forward in the realism and quality of your track.

 

For example this plan is all Streamline, including the use of Streamline Curved turnouts (David! 😉):