An N gauge Southern vignette

[AndyB]

I'm fairly close to completing my journey with my current N gauge BLT layout. And my mind is starting to turn to "What next?" 

 

I'm not so fussed about operating the railway. But I quite like seeing trains pass through a landscape with occassional scope for, say, a pick up goods train.

 

Much of my rolling stock collection is not suited to a branch line, e.g  Schools, 5MT, Q1, a brace of 4-CEPs, Class 33 and has a Southern flavour (we'll ignore the Pannier tanks, 56xx and Fowler 4f for now 😉 )...

 

So to make the most of them I'm thinking of a transition era, twin track secondary mainline set in central Southern region territory. Sticking with N gauge - I love the ability to have decent length trains stretch their legs.

 

A smallish through station with branch line bay, refuge siding and goods yard is envisaged. One siding in the goods yard might punch through the backscene to a brickworks? The crossover between the running lines is placed deliberately to make it more complex to access the goods yard when trains run clockwise. I've deliberately kept the station small (bitsa concept perhaps) compared to the length of open run.

 

There would be a fiddle yard at the rear of the layout. 

 

 

Scenic treatment would be rural with a river meandering, meadows and a village. 

 

My layout is based in a garage which now also doubles as my office and also has encroachment from bikes, golf clubs, a freezer etc etc.

 

Hence the space I'm allowing myself is 12' x 2'6".

 

The final challenges I've set myself are that the layout will be portable just in case the end result is deemed good enough to exhibit someday. So, 4 boards each 3' in length. Track in the scenic section would be British Finescale.

 

I'm no expert using Anyrail so the diagram I've provided is a first stab to help you guys engage with the plan; it took me ages and is very rough. TBH I'm much happier using printed templates on lining paper!

 

The "ask" is for help to improve and refine the plan so that it'd be practical in the space, and be a worthwhile layout to commit to build. 

 

Thanks for reading all this and thanks in advance for any contributions.

Andy

 

 

 

[Harlequin]

Hi Andy,

 

The thing that stands out the most to me is that the goods yard faces the inner, nearside track. Goods locos on the inside track have to run round their train before they can shunt the yard, which is OK but a bit awkward. Worse though, goods trains on the outer track haven't got a trailing crossover to allow them to set back directly into the yard - they have to run wrong road through the station for a distance.

 

There are also some uncomfortable facing connections in the main lines (but maybe that's acceptable in you era/region?) and the 3-track bridge looks a bit odd.

 

I love the basic idea. It's got potential.

 

[Robert Shrives]

I have to agree with above comments.  The double slip and turnout giving a facing connection into a short dead end bay would be unlikely given the fear of facing connections many old companies had "back in the day."  The bay could be a trailing connection  only.   It might be good to have the outer line have trailing connection  just right of the bridge back into the goods yard, single slip in main line to give a trailing crossover. A second trailing crossover nearer platforms would then allow a terminating local service the ability to run round and shunt into the outer bay line.

 

The facing crossover into the loop / goods yard shunt neck might be a good idea if loop was long enough to hold a coal train or similar but as it is short then likely to be a trailing connection only/ not there at all.

 

Worth checking out some of the older OPC books with track plans to see how older companies got around all the fun of smaller stations and avoiding facing points.

 

Robert  

[Nick Holliday]

This OS map, courtesy of the NLS website, shows a typical example, Oxted station on the LBSCR in pre-grouping days. The mapper seems to have been having a bad day, as some of the trackwork looks a bit iffy, and I think that the connection to the yard would have been a single slip, but otherwise I think it demonstrates the points being discussed.

[Keith Addenbrooke]

Hi Andy, as others have said above, the concept looks great and should deliver on what you want.  Would certainly make for a nice exhibition layout too if that transpires.  I like the plan, but wondered if I might make a couple of suggestions:

 

Did you consider an option with  the station at the left hand side - if you flip the whole plan the Goods Yard has a trailing access?

 

I’m inclined to agree with @Harlequin about the bridge - would a railway company really want the extra expense of building (and maintaining) the three track bridge for the sake of a loop?  Is there room to move the river to the right (although the bridge then moves out of its scenic centrepiece location).  Something to ponder perhaps?

 

Personally, I’d probably take out the short bay siding (esp. as I’m showing it with facing access).  Looking at the plan of Oxted @Nick Holliday has shown, there’s room for a siding to be added behind the other platform (shown in red).  I’m assuming it’s for parcels / horse traffic and not passenger trains.  A trailing refuge siding would then be an option on the clockwise side.

 

My only other thought is that 2’6” is about my maximum reach - will there be rear access when the layout is in the garage?
 

Hope that’s OK.  Definitely a layout I’d like to see, Keith.

[Nick Holliday]

11 hours ago, AndyB said:

 

 

Depending on the topography and the use of the river, I think it's unlikely the railway would go to the expense of the third (headshunt) line bridging the watercourse.  It would have been cheaper to divert the river to give sufficient room for the siding.

[AndyB]

Thanks gents for your thoughts so far.

 

Refuge siding: my thinking on this was that it was originally just a trailing siding. However to cope with the demands of wartime traffic there wasn't time for goods traffic to push back into a siding, so it was made into a loop; hence the facing turnout. This was retained into the post-war era.  

 

Yes it is shorter on my diagram than I envisaged and I agree that 3 tracks across the bridge doesn't look right. I can push the bridge to the left and maybe shorten the platforms so as to accommodate this better.

 

From a visual perspective the purpose of the refuge siding is to move the layout on from a twin track roundy roundy. Goods trains would need to get out of the way of faster moving passenger trains. Jeremy English covers this in his "Modelling the Southern". 

 

Outer loop (down) set backs: this was something I'd thought about and RBH skated over to keep things simple / reliable. 

I'll need to reflect on this.

 

Bay platform: my thinking on this is that it would be used by a terminating push-pull service with an M7 in charge. That's why I allowed a direct facing connection to the main line? I think in the 50s/60s era to be portrayed there would have been a more complex arrangement than a double slip; i.e. a separate connection to the outer loop (down).  

 

Might the bay it be moved over to the inner loop (up side)? 

 

Nick's Oxted diagram: I'm going to search out a better diagram so I can better understand what's going on there. I'd say my eyesight is to blame but that wouldn't inspire confidence in an N gauge modeller! Lol. 

 

Reliability: I've not had an easy time with some pointwork which has reduced my enjoyment of the current layout. That's why my instinct is to keep things simple. That said I'm going to put myself through a 101 class on this and build a simple test piece of one point controlled by a servo so u can properly understand the wiring and be able to scale it up. 

 

Train and Platform lengths: 

I'm envisaging these should no more than aporox 1/3 the length of the ~10' scenic section. 

 

I'd not, for example, string 2 x 4-CEPs together. Running your layout off-peak are you, Andy? No, just a visual compromise.

 

Through trains could be a Schools or 5MT with up to 6 coaches, plus luggage van(s) - roughly 40". 

 

I think goods trains could be about 20-25 wagons and stay within the Rule of Thirds.

 

I mentioned this could be a bitsa station, perhaps showing just 2 coaches + loco.  The overbridge and frontscene are intended to disguise this.

The caveat is that leaving part of a train on the turnaround curve may make it harder to restart due to friction. I'm hoping that setting the radius to 2nd & 3rd will avoid problems. 

 

Next steps: I'll re-work the the plan a bit and see if I can improve it based on your ideas. 

 

Andy

[AndyB]

@Keith Addenbrooke & @Nick Hollidaysorry guys. I took Iong time to write my last post and missed yours'. I'll read them in detail later and come back to you.

Andy

[AndyB]

5 hours ago, Keith Addenbrooke said:

 

Did you consider an option with  the station at the left hand side - if you flip the whole plan the Goods Yard has a trailing access?

 

 

My only other thought is that 2’6” is about my maximum reach - will there be rear access when the layout is in the garage?
 

Hope that’s OK.  Definitely a layout I’d like to see, Keith.

 

Reversing the plan?

Yes and no. I have a few layouts that I absolutely love. And these are flipped with the station to the left; Wrenton being at the top of my list. I'm not sure if there is some natural physics that makes this work better than the way I have it.  The bottom line is that there's no real reason, apart from not wanting to do a poor copy of other people's efforts. 

 

Reach?

A very good question.

A while back when I was considering how to get a continuous run layout in a smaller area the stumbling block was access to the FY at the rear. I believe it was one of our interlocutors who proposed a removable backscene.

That said, if I can get away with 2'3" I will,  provided it doesn't cramp the scenics. 

 

Like to see it at an exhibition? 

I'll put you down as one of the operators if you like! 

 

Edited May 27, 2022 by AndyB

[DCB]

19 hours ago, Keith Addenbrooke said:

would a railway company really want the extra expense of building (and maintaining) the three track bridge for the sake of a loop? 

Goathland.

Edited May 28, 2022 by DCB

[AndyB]

13 hours ago, DCB said:

Goathland.

 

Illustrated here:

https://www.nymr.co.uk/blog/on-this-day-26-october-1969-the-return-of-the-pelton-wheel-at-goathland

 

 

[AndyB]

Mk deux.

 

 

Hopefully in flipping it I'll not have brought any / too many of the issues with it. Apologies if I've not incorporated any of your previous points.

 

On the LHS where the platforms would go I've put a ruler down to show the length of a 4-CEP. I didn't have to do a "bitsa" but this could be implied with the overbridge. 

 

I've moved the overbridge so the trains aren't too obviously coming round a bend.

 

The bay platform is marked up for a push-pull service. 

 

I've now only 2 sidings in the goods yard plus headshunt. There's no run round loop so I think this would make it difficult for clockwise goods trains arriving on the outer loop to shunt?

 

The refuge siding is moved to the outer loop and is a decent length; there'd be a trap point on it. I was interested to see @DCB's Goathland contribution but have reduced the river crossing bridge to two tracks.

 

Points avoid baseboard joins. 

 

If I'm being honest I'd say overall it has more track and complexity than I'd originally envisaged. But that was mainly a reliability concern.

 

I think Mk II retains sufficient scope for trains to run outside the bounds of the station.

 

I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on the changes made.

 

Andy

Edited May 29, 2022 by AndyB

[The Stationmaster]

Right -you did ask😇

 

1. Visually - that three track bridge looks weird to  me and the back story doesn't really explain it either.  If a refuge had been converted into a (very expensive) loop surely it would have been given its own separate bridge rather than rebuild/replace a double line bridge?

 

I think from a track layout design viewpoint the bridge is probably too near to the station.

 

2. Operationally

2.1 As already mentioned you have a goods yard that cannot be shunted without a vast amount of messing about.  It needs to be fed by a trailing crossover from the opposite running line and no facing connection in a running line.

2.2 The double slip at the entrance to the bay platform is a major no-no.  First of all a double slip is unnecessary am nyway and secondly it creates a running line facing crossover which is not a very useful (and definitely wasn't in the era you intend to model).  you could reasonably use a single slip just there - exactly as my own planned layout as it happens - thus giving the bay acces to both running lines.  It was not the most common way of doing such a job by a long margin but examples could be found  (and that's my excuse for using it in a layout plan) or you could do it ina more typical way still retaining the facing access but use a diamond instead of the double slip and provide a separate crossover for leaving the platform (or of course you could simply shunt the reversing train from one line to another through a trailing crossover).

2.3. Very peculiarly you have quite a 'busy' track layout without any form of running lines trailing crossover - there must have been somewhere like it somewhere but I can't immediately call one to mind.

 

So big points are reduce the bridge to double track and create trailing access to the goods yard.   Now I know this is GWR (although it did see trains from the green railway) but this shows just how things could be arranged where a bridge is involved

 

[Keith Addenbrooke]

2 hours ago, The Stationmaster said:

Right -you did ask😇

 

1. Visually - that three track bridge looks weird to  me and the back story doesn't really explain it either.  If a refuge had been converted into a (very expensive) loop surely it would have been given its own separate bridge rather than rebuild/replace a double line bridge?

 

I think from a track layout design viewpoint the bridge is probably too near to the station.

 

2. Operationally

2.1 As already mentioned you have a goods yard that cannot be shunted without a vast amount of messing about.  It needs to be fed by a trailing crossover from the opposite running line and no facing connection in a running line.

2.2 The double slip at the entrance to the bay platform is a major no-no.  First of all a double slip is unnecessary am nyway and secondly it creates a running line facing crossover which is not a very useful (and definitely wasn't in the era you intend to model).  you could reasonably use a single slip just there - exactly as my own planned layout as it happens - thus giving the bay acces to both running lines.  It was not the most common way of doing such a job by a long margin but examples could be found  (and that's my excuse for using it in a layout plan) or you could do it ina more typical way still retaining the facing access but use a diamond instead of the double slip and provide a separate crossover for leaving the platform (or of course you could simply shunt the reversing train from one line to another through a trailing crossover).

2.3. Very peculiarly you have quite a 'busy' track layout without any form of running lines trailing crossover - there must have been somewhere like it somewhere but I can't immediately call one to mind.

 

So big points are reduce the bridge to double track and create trailing access to the goods yard.   Now I know this is GWR (although it did see trains from the green railway) but this shows just how things could be arranged where a bridge is involved

 

Can I ask where this is?  The twin track Goods Shed and facing access to what I presume is the Mileage Siding seem quite distinctive but it’s not somewhere I recognise, sorry.  Thanks, Keith.

[Harlequin]

13 minutes ago, Keith Addenbrooke said:

Can I ask where this is?  The twin track Goods Shed and facing access to what I presume is the Mileage Siding seem quite distinctive but it’s not somewhere I recognise, sorry.  Thanks, Keith.

Mike was obviously teasing us but I did recognise it. It’s Bradford on Avon.

 

The crossover on the bridge is a really useful space saving feature for models - if you can engineer the point motor mechanism satisfactorily.

 

Edited May 29, 2022 by Harlequin

[The Stationmaster]

1 hour ago, Harlequin said:

Mike was obviously teasing us but I did recognise it. It’s Bradford on Avon.

 

The crossover on the bridge is a really useful space saving feature for models - if you can engineer the point motor mechanism satisfactorily.

 

Indeed it os Phil.. the layout ck learly changed there at some time because on this early 29th century OS map the yard connection appears to be via a diamond (was it a single slip in order to also create a main lines crossover?).  However what seems to have been a later arrangement  saw a trailing crossover beyond the bridge and a facing connection provided into the yard although that was basically reproducing that end of the original diamond crossing.

[AndyB]

Thanks for the additional thoughts and to Mike for the insights. 

 

For now I've stripped the plan down to a pair of concentric tracks as there seemed to be so many issues with the plan as proposed. 

 

I'll look to add some elements to give a bit of operational interest in due course.

 

Cheers for now. Andy 

 

[Flying Pig]

15 hours ago, AndyB said:

For now I've stripped the plan down to a pair of concentric tracks as there seemed to be so many issues with the plan as proposed. 

 

I came up with a basic scheme using "typical" elements of a wayside station, so I thought I'd post it anyway. Some observations:

 

- it incorporates the bridge, which means most of the track would be on an embankment (so sidings at the station end make sense);

- it avoids facing points and pointwork on the bridge;

- the separate refuge siding could of course be left out: to use it you would have to be confident in reversing full trains over pointwork without mishap (and are the points too far from the box?);

- the goods "loop" is not a loop but a siding that can be shunted from either line, so doesn't need to be particularly long (if you need to get a "clockwise" goods out of the way during shunting, it can reverse over the crossover into the anticlockwise platform, a move not often seen on models, or you could even imagine another refuge siding offstage to the right);

- the single slip forming a second crossover could be a plain diamond if you don't need to run round, which might improve reliability;

- your motor train can terminate in the upper platform and shunt to the bay.

 

[AndyB]

Thanks @Flying Pig I really like that. 👏

It captures all the elements I was after and kerps it simple. 

 

Operationally it has plenty of scope. And if exhibited would allow trains to circulate, whilst having sufficient to keep the operators engaged. 

 

Visually I'd assumed the trackbed would be on an embankment to help show off the trains for onlookers. 

 

I'll see about translating this into AnyRail later today. 😀

 

Thanks for taking the trouble to post your layout scheme. 

Andy

[5BarVT]

1 hour ago, Flying Pig said:

- the single slip forming a second crossover could be a plain diamond if you don't need to run round, which might improve reliability;

Doesn’t even ‘prevent’ running round, just makes it more ‘interesting’ as you need to use both mains to do it.

Paul.

[The Stationmaster]

2 hours ago, Flying Pig said:

 

I came up with a basic scheme using "typical" elements of a wayside station, so I thought I'd post it anyway. Some observations:

 

- it incorporates the bridge, which means most of the track would be on an embankment (so sidings at the station end make sense);

- it avoids facing points and pointwork on the bridge;

- the separate refuge siding could of course be left out: to use it you would have to be confident in reversing full trains over pointwork without mishap (and are the points too far from the box?);

- the goods "loop" is not a loop but a siding that can be shunted from either line, so doesn't need to be particularly long (if you need to get a "clockwise" goods out of the way during shunting, it can reverse over the crossover into the anticlockwise platform, a move not often seen on models, or you could even imagine another refuge siding offstage to the right);

- the single slip forming a second crossover could be a plain diamond if you don't need to run round, which might improve reliability;

- your motor train can terminate in the upper platform and shunt to the bay.

 

Very nearly Bradford-On-Avon plus a Down bay.. But there was probably somewhere on the Southern that wasn't too different😇

[AndyB]

28 minutes ago, The Stationmaster said:

Very nearly Bradford-On-Avon plus a Down bay.. But there was probably somewhere on the Southern that wasn't too different😇

 

Yes. Perhaps. 😀

Although from these pictures  I'm not sure where the eqivalrnt crossovers were. If, indeed there were any. 

 

http://www.starzina.com/Starzina Z Railways Bordon and Bentley.htm

[Flying Pig]

2 hours ago, 5BarVT said:

Doesn’t even ‘prevent’ running round, just makes it more ‘interesting’ as you need to use both mains to do it.

Paul.

 

I don't follow.  With the slip you'd run round using both main lines, with the train situated between the two crossovers. Without the slip, you only have one crossover so how do you run round?

[Flying Pig]

17 minutes ago, AndyB said:

 

Yes. Perhaps. 😀

Although from these pictures  I'm not sure where the eqivalrnt crossovers were. If, indeed there were any. 

 

http://www.starzina.com/Starzina Z Railways Bordon and Bentley.htm

 

Another approach, rather than using a generic plan, would be to trawl the signal diagrams linked from the pinned thread at the top of this forum.  Can be time consuming (!) and you will almost certainly need to adapt, but you can then at least base your layout on a real Southern station if that bothers you.  I couldn't find the typical layout though as all the Southern stations I looked at were peculiar or complicated in some way... (that's why I drew one myself). 

[PaulCheffus]

54 minutes ago, Flying Pig said:

 

I don't follow.  With the slip you'd run round using both main lines, with the train situated between the two crossovers. Without the slip, you only have one crossover so how do you run round?

Hi

 

I assume via the loop feeding the sidings and across the diamond crossing that would replace the slip.

 

Cheers

 

Paul