[dwb]

I would appreciate some feedback.
The mainline runs through the centre of the station and expands from two track to four track. This is part of the continuous run. The loop curves down towards the bottom of the drawing at each end.
The double track at the top is a subsidiary line which will probably run to return loops at each end.
The platforms are long enough to accommodate 6 coach trains + top link tender loco.
The carriage sidings, goods yard and parcels depot have more space available. The few lines drawn are place holders.
The purpose of this upload is to check I haven't done anything really dumb.
The pointwork will be live frog Peco code 75 and I have enough space to use large radius on all the mainline stuff. I have checked the pointwork will fit.

But will it work?

David

 

[John Webb]

Dear dwb,

What era are you modelling? If the last thirty-forty years then the arrangement is too complex, as British Rail simplified track arrangements by eliminating most double and single slips and used successions of cross-overs. ('Ladders')

If older, then I think it would work, but I would suggest that goods traffic would be separated from the passenger platforms as much as possible - there would be a reversible line (modern style) or up and down goods lines (old style) linked to the slow lines on the right-hand side of your plan - eg your reception lines would carry on to the right round the back of the platforms and link up with the slow lines - this would also allow trains to feed into the parcels sidings on the right.

Hope these comments are of help.

Regards,
John Webb

 

[dwb]

In terms of period I'm thinking of the 50s maybe straying a little into the early 60s. I really fancy a red City of Leeds. I guessed from memories of reading the story of the Deltics and how BR made small incremental improvements to station track layouts that I might get away with the multiple slips etc.

Your comment on goods separation is interesting. In an earlier plan I had a "third" line running between two of the platform lines at the bottom of plan. I had a feeling that running goods trains past passenger platforms was frowned on. I don't think I have room to get the reception line back up to the main at the far end, so maybe I should put the third line back in again? I would lose one of the two long goods lines in the process because I'm at maximum width with the lines and platforms you see on the plan.

David

 

[double00]

What size of board will be used? Is a loop rail to be used?
In the area shown, appears to be several points in use - to many points can cause a headache as to electrical continuity and derailment of rolling stock.
I am not criticising, merely interested as a modeller.

 

[dwb]

The board (Sundeala) is 2 feet wide. That is non-negotiable because every 2 feet there's a rather important piece of wood in the way - it keeps the roof up.

For connections, each point will have its own feed soldered on; there's no choice with livefrogs. Following other comments here, each individual straight piece will also have soldered "droppers" as well. I have already installed a power bus with screw connectors every 2 feet, so finding power is not a problem. I just have to choose the right half as it were.

David

 

[John Webb]

Thinking a bit more about this, I'd drop the 'Bay' platform line below the bottom platform and use the area for one of the pair of 'goods lines' mentioned in my previous posting. This would give more scope for running locos round trains for appropriate shunting into the goods or parcels areas.

Best wishes,
John Webb

 

[dwb]

>I'd drop the 'Bay' platform line below the bottom platform
I think you're right. I was looking at the space available a couple of nights ago. The combination of lines and platforms is all that will fit. Dropping the bay would give me space to put in a central through line and leave the lowest two lines as a goods handling with runaround. A fence along the rear edge of the platform will keep the passengers safe; and I can always remove the fence later...

David

 

[Colombo]

Given that you are specifying Peco Code 75 rail, I assume that you are planning a 4mm scale layout. If so I would suggest that you are trying to fit in far too match track for a 2 foot wide board. I say this with experience of building a mainline through station. See photos of Colombo's layout.

You should allow about 4" for each pair of double tracks and 4" for a double sided platform. Think about an overbridge in the centre of the station with station buildings over the platforms and steps down onto the platform. Also allow some space for retaining walls and low relief buildings against the back scene.

I hope that you find this helpful.

Colombo

 

[Colombo]

Just to reinforce my point about the width of your proposed station.

You are hoping to fit this station into baseboards 2 feet wide. You have 10 tracks and three platforms with two faces and one single faced platform. I also have 10 tracks through my station and only three platforms with two faces. The width of this arrangement is 34". I have used another 14" for scenery.

If you want any station buildings on the platforms, then a width of 4" is barely enough. Its only a scale 25 feet. If you allow ten feet for a very narrow waiting room, you are left with only 7'6" from the building to each platform face.

I think that you are going to have to simplify the layout quite a bit, unless you are building it in N gauge.

Colombo

 

[dwb]

Fair comments Columbo.
I thought I could squeeze a main station building in the space at the end of the bay platform. If there isn't enough space on the other platforms for enclosed waiting space, the passengers are going to have to freeze. I want to run trains; lots of trains.

David

 

[John Webb]

How about:
1. Island platform between the up and down branch lines
2. Island platform between the up and down slow lines
3. No platform serving the main line, as stopping trains can be switched (with your proposed points layout) into the branch or slow platforms and out again.
This is very typical of the 1950s/60s period - examples that occur to me are Oxford (which had very long platforms and scissors cross-overs in the middle to accomodate 2 trains on a single platform); Stratford E London but without the scissors cross-overs; possibly Didcot, although this did have platforms on the main line as well; and on a large scale with several branches close to the station was Crewe, but it would need slimming down just a bit

Best wishes,
John

 

[dwb]

John,
Interesting ideas - I'm giving them a whirl.

Thanks
David

 

[dwb]

The Plan Mk2
Following John's comments I came up with this. The station building is going to have to be on a road overbridge I think.

I've coloured the main Up / Down line routing to help explain why some of the crossings are the way they are. This is not going to be a high speed through route - there are too many changes of direction for that.

Comments?

David

 

[John Webb]

Hi! Glad to hear you are finding my suggestions are helpful.

I've looked at Mark2 annd I think you are almost there. Should make for interesting operation and looks.

I've not got so much room, so I've had to settle for a smallish layout - look at the 'O, G and larger gauges, Garden and Live steam' forum - I've got a topic there "Mixing Hornby Live steam with 'trad' 12volt" which shows what I'm currently up to.

Regards,
John Webb

 

[Colombo]

It all seems to be coming together for you now.

However, I should add a warning about too much complication.

I presume that with so many routes and plenty of trains running, you will not be able to control them all at once. In which case you should design to minimise the risk of derailments. Try to arrange for the normal throught routes on points being straight on, avoid double slips and see if you can avoid facing points on fast routes.

May I just make a comment about the way many model railways are put togerther these days. Regrettably there is a tendancy to copy other peoples models rather than build something based on a full size prototype. This is a bad principle, and in the end not very satisfying in my opinion.

Have you considered making a model of a real station? If you can find enough information about a particular prototype, you have all the design work and the signalling plan done for you already. Of course, really large main line stations were very complex and you always have to miss a lot out.

I chose to model only one end of a mainline station, so that I could have an excuse to change East Coast main line engines in the platform. There are also three bay platforms where I can terminate trains, a depot where locos can be turned and serviced, and carriage sidings where trains can be stored. The fiddle yard accommodates both through trains and terminating trains from the bay platforms.

I admit that I have simplified it a lot, but I do still intend to retain the main components which will make it as instantly recognisable as possible.

Colombo

 

[dwb]

Thanks for comments Columbo. I do have a tendency to try to squeeze a quart into a pint pot. My long term plan is that the mainline will be run by computer while I am "messing" about in the station yard, but I do like to "tail chase" from time to time.

The plan is from my own fevered imagination. The operation I have most in mind at present is splitting and recombining Pullman portions which requires reasonably long trains and somewhere for them to go. That's why there are so many facing points. The slips are in because they save space compared to a pair of points - I am planning to stick to Peco large radius which should reduce the "shock" of changing direction.

Although working in the attic gives me a lot of length 24ft before having to decide which side of the water tank to go round - the mainline curls round in front and the branch will go behind and maybe come back again. I do have the restriction of trusses every 2 feet. This makes if difficult to bring the main line round to anywhere much beyond the middle of the board whilst retaining a minimum radius on the inside curve of between 24 and 30 inches. The other problem is the overall width restriction of 24" at the height I have chosen within the trusses.

From what you have said about facing points and slips I think I will lay the main through routes for a while before I install point motors etc. in case derailments are an issue.

David

 

[dwb]

Following Columbo's comments, this is the latest plan. Most of the double slips have gone and the single slips are almost all "trailing" on the main lines. The rather odd arrangement with the 'Y' point at the top left is not nearly so bad when mocked up with real track and has the advantage that the main line is through the 'straight' portion of the point. If it works, I will probably use a mirror image of this at the top right end so that that main line also runs through on the straight and narrow.

A separate question. I now have some large radius Peco finescale points. I noticed in laying them out that butting crossover pairs together would require some serious surgery on the points themselves. I don't fancy doing this. Spacing the crossovers with about 0.5 inches of track would make all the difference. Is this a wise move or should I just carve up the points?

David

PS. I have noticed that these points have a feed wire for the frog; so much simpler than trying to solder down between the rails - I hope.