New layout plans

[45655]

[quote="Bufferstop"]Hi 45655, Perhaps you would like to introduce yourself via the Welcome thread. The site is called New Railway Modellers Forum,, it's aim in life being to help and advise those of any age coming or returning to the hobby. So a lot of layouts will look somewhat train set like.[quote]

Yes, I know. But I think this gentleman wants a little bit more than trainset, given the space he has, the budget he apparently has, and that he's using Peco code 75 track, not set-track.

[45655]

Anyway, there are some things that I suggest could be done in the space available, as an alternative to the 4 platform station:

1. A country station, possibly GWR, in the middle of nowhere, with 2 platforms and a bay platform for a branch. The junction for which may be further down the line. Probably about 8-11 or so turnouts.
2. A set of exchange sidings from an industrial branch in a rural area, mechanical signalling era non-specific. Fewer than 10 turnouts.
3. The approaches to a larger station just off-scene, an MPD and maybe carriages sidings filling most of the presentation space. Rather more turnouts, maybe 20-25.

[Lookoutdadsabout]

Hi 45655,
Thank you for your idea, I will certainly look into that. You are correct in that it will definitely not be a train set, and as you say will be quite a cost to complete. Hence my hesitation to proceed with my original plan.
At the moment I had planned for a meandering branch line from the other side of the layout which runs into the buffers on platform 4 buffer stop. This is run with a DCC shuttle control.

The layout as a whole will be a joined double loop, so from the east end of the station which is at a higher level, goes over the lower level line then gently runs down and around into the fiddle yard which is under the station layout. From there, back around and gently up again back into the station. Most of the track is laid, bar the station area and branch line.
Many thanks again

[Emettman]

Lookoutdadsabout, can I ask what your planned train length is for this station?


I'm finding ways to get things a bit simpler, but I'm assuming engine change and train direction reversal is wanted.
Given that I'm finding a modest two-direction goods is no real extra problem.

Chris

[45655]

OK, 14.75 ft by 2.65 ft.
(4.5m x 80cm)

I've had a play and have got as far as a messy sketch.

lookout1.jpg

(edit) If you send me your e-mail address I should be able to send this as an .any file that can be worked with.

Both mains have extra platforms (because the frequency of model trains is nearer that of the Circle line.)
All 4 platforms have tolerable loco access to let loco-hauled trains reverse.
(DMU's are so much easier. 2 sets of trailing crossovers, both directions sorted.)
2 double and 2 single slips.

The busiest line may well be the branch line run-round which provides access to the locos and to the goods yard and headshunt.
The goods yard is at the front because the far simpler track at the rear should give fever problems.

A one-directional turn-around using a pair of terminal bays would be simpler, but it would need reversing arrangements (or a return loop) in the fiddle yard.

Just thinking.

Chris

That plan looks better because you've transitioned the curve on the left.

I would be wary of the desire to have 4 platforms. For somewhere to have 4 platforms it would have to be a reasonably sized city; think e.g. Leicester London Road. Yet, such stations usually have permanent speed restrictions at their throats unless there are fast running lines through the station. Hence, here I would think that two platforms (plus a bay) would be best, since that allows expresses to run at express speeds non-stop.

[Emettman]

I would be wary of the desire to have 4 platforms. For somewhere to have 4 platforms it would have to be a reasonably sized city; think e.g. Leicester London Road. Yet, such stations usually have permanent speed restrictions at their throats unless there are fast running lines through the station. Hence, here I would think that two platforms (plus a bay) would be best, since that allows expresses to run at express speeds non-stop.

I understand your thinking, and all being equal I'd agree.
(decision is down to layout owner, anyway)

Why an I thinking about four, apart from it being in the original sketch?
A significant loco presence is wanted, with turntable. This would normally mean loco changes and/or services terminating or reversing.
There may be plenty of time for that with two platforms on a service of 3 trains an hour each way, but that's not how model railways are usually worked.
Two platforms might serve if the, say, junction station corresponding to the MPD was in fact off-stage, leading to lots of light loco movement, but there was no real role for the locos at the station being modelled. It would make for cramped running unless the MPD had it's own access to the hypothetical offstage station.
There is a looped 8 trackplan. With a fair frequency of trains, 4 platforms allows expresses to be distinguished from semi-fast and slow trains, *and overtake them.
Why not 2 platforms and two pure through lines? Simply to give, for a few extra inches of width, more options and train-holding potential.

Chris.

[Lookoutdadsabout]

Hi Chris, i was planning a 3 coach train plus loco, maybe 4 at a push. Each square on the plan equals 200mm. But the depth is now 800mm, where as the plan shows a little more.
Many thanks again Jim

[Lookoutdadsabout]

Oops duplicated...

[Lookoutdadsabout]

Hi, by the way I'm not hung up on 4 platforms I was filling the space, but may of fallen into the well known trap of covering every inch with track! As you say the model world (for me) has a different time to real time. I definately wont be running this to a timetable. Life's to short!
The station area will be the operational focal point so would preferably like a lot of arrivals and departures, with some trains not stopping. Not sure about 2 fast lines though, would prefer they all had the ability to stop at a platform if possible.
Thanks again
Jim

[Emettman]

Hi Chris, i was planning a 3 coach train plus loco, maybe 4 at a push.

Ah, that's OK.
I was only getting 5 plus a loco easily, but reckoned I could get 6 with a bit of care.

4 10.5" coaches + tender loco I shall work to.

Chris

[Lookoutdadsabout]

Sounds great... thank you

[Emettman]

Here we go.
Something a bit more polished (Anyrail file by email to follow)

As is, two through roads in either direction, one of which is set up to start, terminate and turn trains.
Platforms to 53". 4 x 10.5" with a degree of comfort.

A. if the loop here is eliminated for cost or to give more room at the front of the board it gives one through line in either direction, plus a bidirectional through or terminal line.

B. Single slip,
C. Double slip.
The locos have good access to either end of the bidirectional platform, either directly or via branch run-round.
This is also used by the goods headshunt and sidings, another reason why they have come to the front.

S. Single slip.
One reason why the platforms are as they are is that immediately down and right from the slip a loco length of clear track is needed to let locos on/off the train in the dual direction platform without fouling the right to left man line.
More realistic and better, at greater expense, would be to replace this plain track and the point to its immediate right with a double slip, giving a proper protection to the main line and a useful loco spur (shown, offset.)

The smaller branchline platform also connects to both main lines in both directions, so gives extra through or terminal capacity for short local trains.

Odd thoughts looking at plan as I type: that "loco spur", extended and curved round outside the branch line, could make a carriage siding.
And with a bit of playing a "loco coal" spur might be possible too, but I don't think, quite, a ramp for a coaling stage. It would be very obtrusive at the front, anyway.

Chris

[Lookoutdadsabout]

Hi Chris, this initially looks brilliant and thank you so much for your time. I will take an in depth look over the weekend.
Many thanks Jim