Track Planning & Layout Ideas - New Builds Started

[Armchair Modeller]

Hi Knuckles

I suspect that some of your conceptual problems with the layout design are due to the alignment of the station in relation to the branch line. Have you considered a mirror image?

ld6o32wh.jpg

At A you could move the junction to the left - maybe use a 3-way point and make the branch platform longer. At B you could have a single slip (from the branch to the anti-clockwise main line). Just an idea - as we are talking about an imaginary station it is difficult to say what things should be like, or what would be best for you.

Facing point locks are required on every facing point used by passenger trains.

[Knuckles]

Its fictional but 'kind of' based on a prototype. Isn't 100% freelance. If you look at previous posts you will see what I mean in realation to Wilbert's plans, the RWS illustrations and both Yarnton and...can't remember. That other junction on previous page!

I do see what your saying, but flipping it would in effect be a totally different layout to me.

That's why I need to know if the latest is plausable.

Planning planning and refining the planning. It is never ending, but often fun in ways.

[frizby]

I would expect the branch line loop to continue alongside the branchline for a distance as a headshunt to avoid the risk of fouling the branchline when shunting the yard.

Andy

[Knuckles]

Hi frizby, I think that area is ok to be honest. If you look at the length of the parallal line at the very bottom befor it reaches the left hand points that length should be able to hold a loco plus a load of trucks from the yard. That was one of my design concepts, that the yard could in theory be shunted without disturbing the arrival and departure of branch trains. it would however get in the way if the branch trains wanted to run around. Unsure on the other queery's though.


Original Queery...

Thanks keith, after much thinking I've decided I'll leave the bottom area as a fiddle yard, but in a style typical to me and very much keeping with the whole premise I'll probably try to make that removable too. Could possibley add a scenic section temporaraly then.

Please could you and/or others have a look at this picture and give suggestions. I know facing points are often avoided which is why I opted for a single slip (and built it) but because it's a junction that oesn't allow trains to enter one of the platforms-and I'd like that flexibility. Junctions to my knowledge had more facing points than other stations for this very reason so if I were to install a double at top right would it need a Facing Point Lock, and is there anything else I need to know? I'm constantly studying prototype practices but as there is so much to know I'm only 0.000000002% through!

At the top left side in this plan instead of a double slip and short station run around I've changed it to 3 standard turnouts - this provides a bigger station run around should it be needed but it means trains entering from the branch have to run wrong road until it gets to the other end of the station. Is this a genuine problem that would be avoided? It was the reason I opted for a single slip at the top right to begin with, so trains stay on the right lines for as longs as possible.

Also there is a point providing some kind of service, unsure what.



Please see what ye think, want to get this planned good before I do any of it (so I'll probably tweak it 53 times more yet).

Also

I have had this idea for a style premise....



Naturally many of us want to be able to run a variety of stock, often in different periods. We can often get away with just changing the trains and rolling stock and maybe swapping a few cars for earlier or older and the buildings do the rest, I mean, my house is over 100 years but it's still a 2012 building if it was to be in a layout. There is however a line because a model based in 1900 with class 66's and the like running through would only convince in a couple of locations. You get what I'm saying.


Anyway, I like the BR period but I want to model earlier, I see the BR period too much and the pre grouping and big 4 period modelling is what grabs me the most. I guess people model it less becasue there are less RTR models, especially pre grouping.


This does present a few problems however, I wish to model real railway basis and not just RWS so what I wish to do needs to be realistic and believable, by modelling early and having early buildings I should be able to model/play/run/film more time scales (no pillons in the way or modern housing etc!) but to me a main issue is the sleepers. Many won't notice or care but you know me, a bit of a stickler for details. After the groupoing the sleepers apparently reduced from 9" to 8" 6', this can be quite noticable. Now I know it wouldn't have happened straight away and there would have been several years of transition but if I want to model in say, 1940 or 1950 then having wide sleepers on the main line would I guess be wrong. At the same time if I model shorter sleepers and want to model pre grouping it likewise will be wrong, I can't win, either way I have to compromise but unsure in what area. So I'm unsure what to do, that is problem 1.


Problem 2 isn't so much a problem but more an idea that I think is fairly clever but unsure if I should do it.


Basically, I've come to the conclusion that all things I model that are fictional or Sudrian should be based or coppied from a prototype. I also think I have found Sodor's 'company style' in terms of paint and a couple of architectural details so I was thinking of basing the modelling around prototypes, in all areas if possible. This would be realistic and allow real non sudrian trains.


I have this idea (unsure on sleepering still)


The LNWR has always interested me, considering Sodor is the NWR pinching some elements I don't think would be wrong, same for certain areas of the L&Y and a few other companies.


If I were to loosely model the LNWR I could have my pre grouping look, the L&Y was absorbed into the LNWR in 1922 so I could also run L&R trains and stick (knowing that not everything would be repainted immidiately so there is some transition grace) and then in 1923 it all went LMS & GWR so again, not everything would be painted at day one.


This to my mind would give me a good excuse to model the 3 railway companies that seem to grab me the most, the LNWR, L&Y and also the later LMS. When I'm 'playing' I could mix and match the 3 to a small degree becasue of the close proximity of time changes. I've rambled on a lot I know but would like your take on it.



If any of you could reply to the premise and also the original questions about the plan that'd be sweet. I know I've typed a fair bit though.

[grovenor-2685]

I like your change top left, the siding should have a trap point and might usefully be a bit longer and serve a small industry, maybe a dairy so you could pick up and drop off milk traffic. You lost the option for Branch trains too go direct to the top platform but that's not needed as they can depart to the main line from the bottom platform when needed. And to many options complicates track and signalling.
Using this argument I would leave the single slip as is. Trains for the branch coming off the main use the middle platform then take the branch on your existing facing point.
I would, however make the point under the footbridge on the branch platform into a double slip and thus give the branch platform a headshunt so branch trains arriving can run round without blocking the main.
Pick up goods servicing the yard will need to run into the branch then reverse back to do their shunting, then either continue onto the branch, or run round to go back whence they came.
Or they could shunt back to the middle platform then continue on the main. All makes operation more interesting than just having simple facing moves for everything.
Nb The branch loop that also acts as yard shunt neck needs a trap point to protect the branch.
So, in total I suggest adding the two required trap points, without which H M Railway Inspector will not approve it, and convert one turnout to double slip and you will have a good layout, interesting to operate.
Regards
Keith

[Knuckles]

Thanks Keith, your responce is most helpful. Quite a few of your suggestions on how to operate the trains is what I was thinking, which is encouraging for I don't know that much on the way they did things, only a little. What you've said makes perfect sence. I didn't know if killing entry from the branch to the top platform main would be a problem, I know the trains can head right wrong road until they get to the signal box area but didn't know if that was considered bad practice.

Regarding the slip at the far right I still haven't decided, there's pro's and con's to each.

I've took what you said on board and spent an hour or two tweaking, also moved the main lines to the center of the board to provide more scenic depth (I hope) and have drafted a fiddle yard.




I thought about making the top left trap a full turnout as in the plan, but that makes the siding shorter so might be bad idea, the bottom right trap goes straight into the bank, so a natural stop.

Hows the n
There is a plan of Stanley Junction on previous page that has the new layout almost the same. link..

http://www.railbrit.co.uk/imageenlarge/ ... hp?id=7377

How's all this?

[grovenor-2685]

I thought about making the top left trap a full turnout as in the plan, but that makes the siding shorter so might be bad idea, the bottom right trap goes straight into the bank, so a natural stop.

The top left trap could be a full turnout as you have shown but it doesn't give any operational benefit so I would just use a simple trap to maximise siding space. The bottom right trap you have drawn is not what I meant, the loop line there would not be a passenger running line, IMHO, just for shunting and loco run-rounds. But the branch needs to be protected from those shunting activities so you can have a branch arrival or departure while a freight is in the sidings. The trap needs to be bottom left just before the curved point joining the loop to the branch.

You could signal the layout so that trains from the branch can run to the middle platform and run wrong road to the right hand crossover, makes your signalling much more complex, personally I would stick with the arrangement shown on the Stanley junction plan where the left hand junction is signalled only for going onto the branch and all trains coming off the branch have to go through the lower platform and use the right hand junction. But both arrangements are OK, its your choice.
Regards
Keith

[Knuckles]

Thanks for the info.

I've amended the plan. I'm still unsure on a few things and the station location I might want on the top line, or maybe I could have both and sumise one is a newer building.
Ther goods yard I have in the fictional history as a small bay platform, primaraly for goods that was then expanded slightly into what you see.

Platform access is something I'm unsure on, the station building at the bottom is supposed to be on a slight bank, hence the footbridge, but I'm unsure if I should include barrow crossings or maybe a subway. That small shunt off the bottom double slip you suggested I add I was thinking of adding a water column or something there, but if I do the positioning is a mystery. Ok if it's a tank engine but if it's a tender then it might be at the wrong end.

I'm reading Bob Essery's book on passenger operations at the moment and the provision for coach shunting, bolstering and transfering a coach full of passengers to another platform so they don't have to get out (luxury) seems an interesting prospect.

Plan so far with tweaks...





I'm also unsure on what period or operating company is to be dominant, but I want to get this cracked so I can then decide on architectural style and weather to have short or longer sleepers.
Many things to consider - it's fun I find too.

Signalling and point rodding I want to include (signals operational at least) but I don't understand the infrastructure and where goes what, I've read numerous books but it's still a confusingly twisted mine of serpents, installing electric cables whilst eating spagetti!
Authough I doubt it, I can send a high quality copy of the plan through email if anyone fancies a close study. Photobucket degrades the pictures.

[Paul Willis]

I have had this idea for a style premise....

Anyway, I like the BR period but I want to model earlier, I see the BR period too much and the pre grouping and big 4 period modelling is what grabs me the most. I guess people model it less because there are less RTR models, especially pre grouping.

This does present a few problems ... but to me a main issue is the sleepers. Many won't notice or care but you know me, a bit of a stickler for details. After the grouping the sleepers apparently reduced from 9" to 8" 6', this can be quite noticeable. Now I know it wouldn't have happened straight away and there would have been several years of transition but if I want to model in say, 1940 or 1950 then having wide sleepers on the main line would I guess be wrong.

Hi Knuckles,

I guess that part of the answer that you don't want to hear is "apply the three feet rule" and don't give a stuff about it! Alternatively "IMTS" can apply equally well.

However I do understand your wish for fidelity, and to get as much as possible right. Even if you are modelling periods that are maybe fifty years apart. Therefore the approach would be to go for the "least wrong" aspect.

Firstly (and I'm not a total track guru) I don't believe that the reduction in sleeper lengths happened on all railway companies at the same time, at Grouping. So you are probably worrying about a false strict dividing line there.

Secondly, you know already that track components had long lives, and were often re-used. So your half a mile of track that is being modelled may have been overlooked for relaying, or it might have needed it at the time that the track from a very lightly used and closed branchline was available, or whatever.

So to be "least wrong", I would definitely go for the 9'0" length. These "pre-Grouping" sleepers could have been laid post-Grouping, or had a long life, or... Whereas using the shorter sleepers in (say) 1910 would almost certainly be wrong, in the general sense.

I feel that you have to strike your own compromise in the world that you model. Unless you are modelling an exact prototype location, that is well documented (JS-W's BNS leaps to mind) then there will always be details that are unknown, and can only be assumed based on best guesses. On the Great Eastern Society's mailing list, there are occasional discussions on whether or not entire stations existed at certain points in the 19th century!

So take a view, decide on it, and move on

HTH
Flymo

[Paul Willis]

Problem 2 isn't so much a problem but more an idea that I think is fairly clever but unsure if I should do it.

Basically, I've come to the conclusion that all things I model that are fictional or Sudrian should be based or coppied from a prototype. I also think I have found Sodor's 'company style' in terms of paint and a couple of architectural details so I was thinking of basing the modelling around prototypes, in all areas if possible. This would be realistic and allow real non sudrian trains.

The LNWR has always interested me, considering Sodor is the NWR pinching some elements I don't think would be wrong, same for certain areas of the L&Y and a few other companies.

If I were to loosely model the LNWR I could have my pre grouping look, the L&Y was absorbed into the LNWR in 1922 so I could also run L&R trains and stick

I've rambled on a lot I know but would like your take on it.

My personal view is that modelling the LNWR is a really good idea. And that's not just because it's my second favourite railway interest after the Great Eastern...

Modelling the LNWR means:

- a good sized fleet of locomotive kits available (start at London Road Models, and go from there...)
- reasonable choice of rolling stock, including some cheap but good basics in the Ratio plastic open wagon kits
- a fair choice of coach and NPV stock (have a look for some of this - D&S and PC Models, plus various coach suppliers)
- even some available signalling and building components (I recall someone - Coopercraft? - even did the standard LNWR panels for building station buildings)
- lots of documentary evidence in the form of books and magazines (start with Edward Talbot and Jack Nelson, and you won't go far wrong)
- a good Line Society that produces publications and a good journal for members.

Oh, and if you get really stuck, you may find that Jol over here can give you a pointer or two

So I would start with a baseline of modelling LNWR "as is" at about 1915 and you can roll the period forward realistically for the next ten, twenty or fifty years from there without it being "too" wrong!

HTH
Flymo

[John Bateson]

While fidelity is good in principle, I for one will not be replacing all my 8'6" sleepers with 9'0" sleepers having moved back a considerable number of years into the pre-grouping era in my interests, but any new track I lay will be to 9'0".
Flymo is right about time spans, for example bull-head rail was still on the lines through Chester station just 4 years ago and I think about 1955 was the official change date to flat bottom? (Correction needed)
Sometimes it is even difficult to convince people of things that actually did happen, such as Buckjumpers in Wrexham/Wrecsam...
Hmmm! Hanson's Wharf, Buckley, (on top of a 400' hill) with Buckjumpers - idea for a layout/plank. Given the pictures I have that would be a great excuse for some very poor track building with indescribable curves and slopes - but of course to P4 standards.

John

[Knuckles]

EDIT: On my PC now, sorted spelling out.

Thankyou for the last three posts. I kept checking the thread and nothing upon nothing so this responce might seem late.

With my LNWR base idea with a bit of L&Y too, further research suggests parts of the MR wrre included and also GWR.
Sometimes it seems that company's ways/styles etc are not that exclusive but rather a big bubbeling couldron of railway stuff amalgamated.

I have decided 9 foot sleepers is probably the way to go. You make some good points for why and I'm swayed. I have reciently found a fictional reason too.

In the rare book, (so rare I payed £150 for it years back) "The Island of Sodor, It's People, History And Railways" Wilbert Awdry describes the 'Locomotive crisis of the 1920's'. Basically the islands railways were amalgimated and joined in 1915-ish to form the North Western Railway/NWR as a strategic coastal defence at the start of the Great War. Government loans helped the building and also many engines mainly from the FR and MR and a few others were borrowed. After the war there was little interest/need in the line from the government so money stopped coming in, and a lot of the engines had to be given back to their respectable companies. Rather than the railway closing it just scraped by and it persuaded the powers that be to keep it's independance and not be drawn into the LMS system. (it did later get sucked into BR though)

Why have I bothered to write all that when it isn't even real?

Well firstly and predominantly it is to give estimation in an area; if the NWR was seriously struggeling to find money and locomotives yet was it's own company still, then it could follow it's own rules regarding sleepering and whatnot, also I highly doubt reducing sleeper length would be a priority considering!

The other reason is to give evidance that my Sudrian interest side of things is a far cry fron the babyish, cringe worthy drivel we see it degraded to in 'Thomas & Friends'. What I wrote above was in my own words an exampke of how realistic and thought out the Railway Series is, just many only see the defiled image. All his stories were based on fact, things that had happened to somebody/engine somewhere, and when the TV series's third season started twisting his stories and making their own up he went ape S*@<>, protesting that they didn't adhere to Rule 55! That's how serious he was about his stories/books. I really don't want people to think I'm your average loopy/immature 'Thomas' fan because what I like is completely different.

If I do thing properly though I can have 'real' running sessions and Sudrian ones. That's the idea.

[Knuckles]

Aswell as the main layout I'm planning above, I have reciently the other day spent nearly 8 hours straight digging my bedroom out, cleaning it, dejunking and removing the bed in favour of an old (new) one, and doing a bit of 'Feng Shuway' room rearranging (that how you say/spell it?), as a result I'm more more mentally peacful with more room, less junk and all things good.

One of my walls I've never had the opportunity to have a mini layout becasue it's just plaster board and a few formers seperating the landing with my room. Now that things are different I can put a small battern on one wall and have a mini layout measuring 6', 6", X 1' (or a bit wider)

I've been wanting a mini layout in P4 for a good while so I think this would be sensible. Not scrapping the idea I've been planning above, if I did a mini one first it would be a good way to test methods, make a few balls ups and all that rather than on the biggy. Seems a good idea.

I've drawn up a few drafts, the best I think is this one utillising all the turnouts I've already made, which are a B6R, B7L-into B7R Single Slip. ( all minus the C10)

If you have any different ideas pertaning to track plan and theme (I have no idea) that would be appreciated. With such a small foot print operations are understandably going to be limited and I can't fit a deicent loop in for run arounds so whatever the theme is to be it needs to make some sence and allow each siding a logical use. I admittedly don't really know. Was thinking a dock, quarry, scrap yard or something else.


You can see where a loop could be added at bottom. Might be better but just seems tight.

[LesGros]

Knuckles wrote:

...If you have any different ideas pertaning to track plan and theme (I have no idea) that would be appreciated. With such a small foot print operations are understandably going to be limited and I can't fit a deicent loop in for run arounds so whatever the theme is to be it needs to make some sence and allow each siding a logical use...

Take a look at Inglenook sidings shunting puzzle; it might stimulate a few ideas.
http://www.wymann.info/ShuntingPuzzles/ ... enook.html

Cheerydoo

[Knuckles]

Thanks LesG', I had a good strip out of that site. Quite interesting. If I add the aforementioned loop it seems the plan I came up with would basically turn into what they call the 'Time Saver' plan, only with an added entry spur. Seems that may be another good idea, authough I do worry about the siding lengths; shortest is just a smidge over 1ft. Yet I think awkwardness is part of the ordeal so it might be ok.

Top-original, Middle-loop added, Bottom-same but bendy.


Still no clue on suitable theme. Too many options!

[Knuckles]

For this mini tester/experimental layout (that will still take a while) I finally have a small idea of how it is to look. Still unsure on the industry but a small corner of a steel works is what I currently am thinking of. Already brought the wood but am not building anything until it's all planned. Any better ideas of industry I could try? You might be able to suggest one I've never heard of, must be 1000's.

[John Donnelly]

Looks interesting, I'm currently re-planning my test plank as I'm not happy with the current layout and this has given me one or two ideas that I might nick if you don't mind

One thought although you may not have the width for it would be to angle the track across the board a bit so that the main line at the back is not parallel with the front and back edges, a bit more like your 'bendy' suggestion earlier...

John

[Knuckles]

Pinch away.

I think it's still bendable. I was going to include two more points to provide a loop but I think the tightness chokes the scenic space, so the simple plan will be ok providing in effect 2 'Ingle Nooks' end on end. The other advantage is I don't have to build any more track as the turnout formations are already made.

I do struggle knowing what facilities go where. This goes for all I
Industry plan types especially. A lot of it will probably be inaccurate guess work.

:-/

For me I think this small layout is a good idea. Balls-ups are less of a disaster, many building/wiring/TOU/lighting and otherthings can be experimented with. It would also be a suitable place to test loco and rolling stock builds on and would be a good photo taking backdrop. Being smaller and less critical it could provide light releif against my more complex and complete 'roundy roundy' plan above

Well, I'm excited about it.

[Paul Willis]

For this mini tester/experimental layout (that will still take a while) I finally have a small idea of how it is to look. Still unsure on the industry but a small corner of a steel works is what I currently am thinking of. Already brought the wood but am not building anything until it's all planned. Any better ideas of industry I could try? You might be able to suggest one I've never heard of, must be 1000's.

Brewery. Nuff said.

Get a copy of Ian Peatie's book for inspiration...

Flymo

[Jan]

Pinch away.

I think it's still bendable. I was going to include two more points to provide a loop but I think the tightness chokes the scenic space, so the simple plan will be ok providing in effect 2 'Ingle Nooks' end on end. The other advantage is I don't have to build any more track as the turnout formations are already made.

I do struggle knowing what facilities go where. This goes for all I
Industry plan types especially. A lot of it will probably be inaccurate guess work.

:-/

For me I think this small layout is a good idea. Balls-ups are less of a disaster, many building/wiring/TOU/lighting and otherthings can be experimented with. It would also be a suitable place to test loco and rolling stock builds on and would be a good photo taking backdrop. Being smaller and less critical it could provide light releif against my more complex and complete 'roundy roundy' plan above

Well, I'm excited about it.

Personally, I think less is more. The smaller plan is achievable. Less chance of disillusion, mojo meltdown etc etc... If you're like me, you'll find yourself moving away from constructing a layout, and getting lost in wagon kits and research!

[Knuckles]

Hello again. In my thread First P4 Layout I've asked a few questions again regarding the theme of the little layout as I'm pretty much ready to start building fun stuff. I'll look here again but if you have any more ideas please reply there as I'm a bugger for decision making.

I'm posting in this thread for a different reason however. The bigger layout plan seen above.

I've been planning this layout on and off for a couple of years now and think I'm about happy with the track plan, I'm 90% decided that when the time is right, this will possibly be the big project that will take me a long time. Anyway, as I'm still planning it I have been thinking about operation more and more, and as you know this tends to tweak the track plan sometimes. Many thanks for your collective help so far. The inclusion of the (relief?) siding by the signal box (right hand side) really makes a lot of sence and has opened up more possibilities of operation.

I was reading through this thread... viewtopic.php?f=27&t=133 ...and it inspired me to do a quick drawing describing one perceived manoeuvre. I've read a couple of books on railway operation and know a little bit, but that literally is all I know...a little bit. So please have a look through this mini display and tell me what you think, whether good or bad.

Ok, pick up goods from the (err, Up? Down? ... 'wrong' line!)

1) Train pulls in from the left heading right, goes past the points and once the brake van (black) clears the bridge, it returns downward to the island platform once points changed.





2) Ignore the disappearing truck, that was a mistake. From 2, the locomotive uncouples, moves forwards, runs around the train and picks up the brake van, then runs round again and pushes it into the relief siding by the signalbox.


3) From 3, loco leaves brake van, reverses clear of the points on the bottom and shunts the yard.


4) from shunting, the mini train reverses to the far left and pushes the trucks to the rear of the train.


5) Then from there reverses again and runs to the front of the train to pick up the brake van in the relief siding.


6) It then reverses to the rear of the train and after the points are changed pushes forward to attach the brake van.


7) Then the loco runs to the front and couples up to continue its journey heading right.



Apologies for the many pictures but I didn't know a better way to illustrate this.

What's your thoughts, is it accurate and realistic? It seems like it'd be fun.

I've also planned some other special moves so if your interested I could post those also.
It all helps the planning.

[Armchair Modeller]

It looks like you have really though this one out in very great detail now

If it is what you really want to do, then just go for it! That is what I decided to do. If we all relied on the opinions of others, every layout would be very conservative and they would all tend to look pretty much the same

It is 50 years ago since Beeching started his cuts, so few people alive today have first-hand experience of how things were done on different railways, in different locations, by individual crews in any great detail. As long as you make sure the facing point locks, catch points and signals are in all the correct places, you can change the way you operate the layout as you go along.

In the example you gave, I wonder if the crew would have uncoupled and parked the brake van at all. I could understand it if the train reversed direction, but maybe not if it carried on in the same direction after doing the shunting.

[Knuckles]

It looks like you have really though this one out in very great detail now

Been at it for a year and half, or maybe even two now. Technically longer when you consider all the RWS research that I've done behind scenes in the past. I'm still thinking it through.

If it is what you really want to do, then just go for it! That is what I decided to do. If we all relied on the opinions of others, every layout would be very conservative and they would all tend to look pretty much the same

Truth is, there are several plans I want to do, which is why I'm trying to design the middle 9FT section (or, and the corner curves) to be removable as two (or 4?) boards. That way, in theory I could in the future build more layouts to fit that space and just swap it when I feel like it, thus not necessitating the need to destroy the original layout in favour of the new, as is often done by almost everyone...me included so far. As well as future planning to include other layouts, it also if I do any more of my baby movie video's allows me to film extra locations.

I know what your saying, and indeed, if we all perpetuate the following of cultural memes we will all end up mindless zombies. So I try to deviate sometimes.

I like to consult others to get a more rounded view. 20 heads are better than one, this way I can attack everything at all angles and thus there is more chance of seeing everything. A bit like when you go on patrol, everyone has their viewing arcs, but if there is someone about to attack, person A might see it and do something about it before person D gets put down. It's also like when I'm researching any subject about anything, I try to get views at all angles, fors, againsts and in-betweens. I guess I'm showing you the wiring of my mind...layout wiring is confusing enough. Moving on!

It is 50 years ago since Beeching started his cuts, so few people alive today have first-hand experience of how things were done on different railways, in different locations, by individual crews in any great detail. As long as you make sure the facing point locks, catch points and signals are in all the correct places, you can change the way you operate the layout as you go along.

That's my point exactly. People lived in the railway period, especially that of BR due to time proximity. So consulting people who know better helps one to get things right. Signalling is a confusing one, especially point rodding. I've read a book on signalling and it helped a little, but when applying that to your own track plans things get mighty confusing.

In the example you gave, I wonder if the crew would have uncoupled and parked the brake van at all. I could understand it if the train reversed direction, but maybe not if it carried on in the same direction after doing the shunting.

HMMmmm, What a most excellent point. Again, my knowledge of prototypical manoeuvres is limited, but looking at my step by step explanation above and taking what you just said into account does indeed seem to make the brake van move 100% redundant. The only advantage of dumping it in the siding I guess would be to increase shunting visibility and / or provide one extra wagon space if shunting a massive train.

As always I'd very much like to know what others think of the whole proposed operation but I think you may be right. Many thanks.


--


Shunting a pick up goods on the closest line would be much easier I think. From right to left on the main, drive in to bottom bay platform, reverse train and dump brake van, go all the way forward and reverse at the most bottom line to shunt the yard, then go forward, cross over again, reverse, collect brake van, forward again to clear the double slip, reverse up to the main line, then carry on going left. This would require the whole train to be shunted though, so it might be a tad heavy or tricky. Then again, if new wagons are to go to the front it would be easier.

I've also thought of having a coach that is transferred from the main to the branch. Basically you have a passenger train waiting in the branch bay about to head left. A passenger train arrives on the main heading left to right, it detaches the first coach, goes forward past the bridge, then reverses downward and couples it up to the branch train rear, then goes forward to retrieve its train and carry on, then the branch train buggeres off without the passengers having to even leave the coach at any time. I know some operations were carried out in a similar vein, but as for accuracy of movements I'm again resorting to flawed logic and guess work based on my track plan.

[Knuckles]

Nothing important but I've changed the title of this thread as I think it more appropiate and long standing.

Also any thoughts on the above? I've got more moves I've been simulating also.

[Armchair Modeller]

All this planning and simulation is totally different to my approach of jumping in at the deep end with a blindfold on.

You are making me feel very guilty that I didn't do all this myself before I started to build my layout.

I suppose I was thinking it would take me years and years to build enough stock to run any complex operation, so why worry about it now.