Kirkby Luneside (Original): End of the line....

[Physicsman]

Very interesting but I would be concerned about accessing the NER fiddle yard if there was an operational issue.

 

Fair point! The NER "yard" will consist of the mainline and a couple of sidings at most, so the depth into the yard will be around 9 inches. The yard will be around 25cm below the main board (at the level of the base of the main viaduct), so access should be ok. Turnouts will number 4, so, again, not too complex.

 

I'm sure my design will evolve as and when the build commences!

 

Jeff

[Jason T]

As mentioned, I'd definitely lose the crossover to the overbridge side of the station as it doesn't appear to be on the prototype plan and for the life of me, I can't think what purpose it would serve, especially with the single slip being situated at the platform ends, giving access to the goods yard.

 

Something I did mean to mention as well was how about having the station on a gentle curve rather than straight. Although the prototype is straight looking on the map, a gentle curve would not only alleviate the radii of the corner into the station area slightly but would give a more flowing look. The first turnouts are at the end of the platforms so this is where you could straighten the plan out, meaning that you can use the Marcway points without having to worry about having them curve slightly.

 

(Edited to add...) Losing the branch line is definitely the right thing to do. The whole station area looks far less cluttered.

[Andrew P]

As mentioned, I'd definitely lose the crossover to the overbridge side of the station as it doesn't appear to be on the prototype plan and for the life of me, I can't think what purpose it would serve, especially with the single slip being situated at the platform ends, giving access to the goods yard.

 

Something I did mean to mention as well was how about having the station on a gentle curve rather than straight. Although the prototype is straight looking on the map, a gentle curve would not only alleviate the radii of the corner into the station area slightly but would give a more flowing look. The first turnouts are at the end of the platforms so this is where you could straighten the plan out, meaning that you can use the Marcway points without having to worry about having them curve slightly.

 

(Edited to add...) Losing the branch line is definitely the right thing to do. The whole station area looks far less cluttered.

Morning Jason, one of the things that I said to Jeff on Monday was the suggestion of a curved Station. In my opinion a curved station always looks longer than a strait one, and also I said to Jeff that I didn't think that the current platform on KL1 was wide enough, for an island I recon you would need at least 5 inches.

When I have built curved stations in the past, even on Terminus layouts, I lay the Platform first, and then lay the track to it either with a Gauge or coach / Loco for clearance.

 

Jeff just remember the NER Line in the fiddle yard will be Track level + timber bearers + 9mm ply top to S & C track.

 

To summerise I'm with Jason re the slight curve, taking an arc from the points at either end of the room will probably be about a 12ft radius I think through the platform area!

 

Bodge

[Physicsman]

Morning Jason, one of the things that I said to Jeff on Monday was the suggestion of a curved Station. In my opinion a curved station always looks longer than a strait one, and also I said to Jeff that I didn't think that the current platform on KL1 was wide enough, for an island I recon you would need at least 5 inches.

When I have built curved stations in the past, even on Terminus layouts, I lay the Platform first, and then lay the track to it either with a Gauge or coach / Loco for clearance.

 

Jeff just remember the NER Line in the fiddle yard will be Track level + timber bearers + 9mm ply top to S & C track.

 

To summerise I'm with Jason re the slight curve, taking an arc from the points at either end of the room will probably be about a 12ft radius I think through the platform area!

 

Bodge

 

Interesting, as - with the previous set-up (having the branch loop in place) - I was limited to the width of the second platform. This is no longer the case.

 

I'll have a think about curving the line through the first half of the platform lengths. I agree with you, Andy, and I think it LOOKS more dynamic. As we discussed, this is a model and I'm not sticking slavishly to prototype.

 

As for the crossovers between the viaduct and station. Does anybody want to stick up for them? They WEREN'T in the original KL plan (look at post 860, page 35), but were later deemed to be "required". I'm all for keeping things simple and would be happy to remove them.... I'm going to look on Google and scan further up the line to see if such structures exist near Kirkby Stephen.

 

Jeff

[Physicsman]

Interesting, as - with the previous set-up (having the branch loop in place) - I was limited to the width of the second platform. This is no longer the case.

 

I'll have a think about curving the line through the first half of the platform lengths. I agree with you, Andy, and I think it LOOKS more dynamic. As we discussed, this is a model and I'm not sticking slavishly to prototype.

 

As for the crossovers between the viaduct and station. Does anybody want to stick up for them? They WEREN'T in the original KL plan (look at post 860, page 35), but were later deemed to be "required". I'm all for keeping things simple and would be happy to remove them.... I'm going to look on Google and scan further up the line to see if such structures exist near Kirkby Stephen.

 

Jeff

 

The answer appears to be "no", so the crossover will disappear.

 

Jeff

[Andrew P]

Interesting, as - with the previous set-up (having the branch loop in place) - I was limited to the width of the second platform. This is no longer the case.

 

I'll have a think about curving the line through the first half of the platform lengths. I agree with you, Andy, and I think it LOOKS more dynamic. As we discussed, this is a model and I'm not sticking slavishly to prototype.

 

As for the crossovers between the viaduct and station. Does anybody want to stick up for them? They WEREN'T in the original KL plan (look at post 860, page 35), but were later deemed to be "required". I'm all for keeping things simple and would be happy to remove them.... I'm going to look on Google and scan further up the line to see if such structures exist near Kirkby Stephen.

 

Jeff

Operationally, I feel you will need some crossover somewhere to make Shunting, Train reversal etc possible and interesting, i.e. a train coming in from the left can drop off wagons, but they will need to return from whence they came.

 

Less is best BUT NOT ALWAYS GOOD.

 

Bodgit, Philosopher to the Stars

[eldavo]

I'm with Bodgit, curving the station area would IMHO improve the look and give you a transition into the slightly sharper radii required at the ends. Simple straights and fixed radius curves doesn't cut it for me. I would try to curve the lot rather than just part of the platform length.

 

I think the crossover on the bridge is superfluous. You have a crossover opposite the goods shed and a loop so you should be able to accommodate all moves (I think!). There will be some propelling of trains to get in and out of the yard but that would be prototypical.

 

Should be an interesting layout to operate.

 

Cheers

Dave

[Jason T]

Thing is Andy, that down trains would shunt the yard from that direction and up trains likewise, with out traffic working (mostly) in the same direction so it's not strictly necessary. If a loco did need to run round for any reason, then I imagine that they would use the goods loop on the up line, run wrong line and use the crossover (single slip) at the up end of the platform and then pass back into the yard. As such, the crossover on the overbridge wouldn't be necessary or ever used.

 

In fact, they wouldn't even need to use that crossover because there is another access point to the yard from the up line to the left of the shed.

Seems like Dave and I agree

[The Stationmaster]

The branch has gone so some of the running round it might have led to has also gone.

 

The yard would basically be served by one, or possibly two, trips per day with the one on the line on the goods shed side doing virtually all the shunting - the one 'crossing the road' would at most only attach or detach the odd handful of wagons.

 

Don't forget that with curving the platforms there's another side of the 'visual improvement' coin as you'll have to increase the 6 foot spacing (depending on radius of the curve) and allow for end throw etc clearance requirements of passing vehicles - particularly coaching stock and large diesels.

 

My biggest concern - along with Gruffalo but then a bit more so - is that of access to the storage loops and their pointwork but maybe I'm thinking from the perspective of an OF with more ample girth and less forgiving knees than a young whippersnapper.

[Andrew P]

Thing is Andy, that down trains would shunt the yard from that direction and up trains likewise, with out traffic working (mostly) in the same direction so it's not strictly necessary. If a loco did need to run round for any reason, then I imagine that they would use the goods loop on the up line, run wrong line and use the crossover (single slip) at the up end of the platform and then pass back into the yard. As such, the crossover on the overbridge wouldn't be necessary or ever used.

 

In fact, they wouldn't even need to use that crossover because there is another access point to the yard from the up line to the left of the shed.

 

Seems like Dave and I agree

Now I understand.

 

Confused of ?

[Physicsman]

Nice to see an active conversation going on. We had the same discussion over 350 pages back re. the crossover....

 

As for the NER fiddle yard, well, in principle there doesn't actually have to be one! I could include a long siding, the length of the section that's behind the Fell....and I'm sure that would do. I can't see the layout being actively run for the NER's behalf - the addition is only "cosmetic" (and gives me an excuse to buy more locos!!) Most of the action will be on the S&C main line and in the goods yard.

 

Mike - I love the term OF. Took me a while to work out. Are you REALLY that old? Rumour had it you were in your late 40s.... 

 

Jeff

[Gruffalo]

The branch has gone so some of the running round it might have led to has also gone.

 

The yard would basically be served by one, or possibly two, trips per day with the one on the line on the goods shed side doing virtually all the shunting - the one 'crossing the road' would at most only attach or detach the odd handful of wagons.

 

Don't forget that with curving the platforms there's another side of the 'visual improvement' coin as you'll have to increase the 6 foot spacing (depending on radius of the curve) and allow for end throw etc clearance requirements of passing vehicles - particularly coaching stock and large diesels.

 

My biggest concern - along with Gruffalo but then a bit more so - is that of access to the storage loops and their pointwork but maybe I'm thinking from the perspective of an OF with more ample girth and less forgiving knees than a young whippersnapper.

As a positive OF of ample girth and protesting knees, my comment was generated as I considered how I could operate such a layout - I bow to The Stationmaster in more ways than one and I feel the creaking and grinding every time, Whilst you are clearly of less advanced years, Grump-old-Git-hood creeps up on us all in time and brings with it the joys of restricted flexibility.

[Physicsman]

Here's the first pics of the deconstruction...

 

The fiddle yard track arrangement before noon today (shown from Jan 13, without the Fell):

 

 

The state of it now:

 

 

 

13 turnouts and Cobalt motors removed so far.

 

Jeff

[Physicsman]

I'm with Bodgit, curving the station area would IMHO improve the look and give you a transition into the slightly sharper radii required at the ends. Simple straights and fixed radius curves doesn't cut it for me. I would try to curve the lot rather than just part of the platform length.

 

I think the crossover on the bridge is superfluous. You have a crossover opposite the goods shed and a loop so you should be able to accommodate all moves (I think!). There will be some propelling of trains to get in and out of the yard but that would be prototypical.

 

Should be an interesting layout to operate.

 

Cheers

Dave

 

Dave, just to clarify. The plan uses Anyrail, which is ok, but a bit limited. The existing track transitions from 72" at the viaduct through to about 200" just as it reaches the station area. Not easy to show on the plan above. The same would apply in KL2.

 

However, I agree with the discussion of having a continuous curve into the station, with the platforms curving to either side. However, I'm going to leave the section from the single slip onwards as-is, as I prefer a "linear look" in this area and the concentration of turnouts here is then easier to organise.

 

Jeff

[Physicsman]

As a positive OF of ample girth and protesting knees, my comment was generated as I considered how I could operate such a layout - I bow to The Stationmaster in more ways than one and I feel the creaking and grinding every time, Whilst you are clearly of less advanced years, Grump-old-Git-hood creeps up on us all in time and brings with it the joys of restricted flexibility.

 

I've now learned two new things today. The contraction for Old Fogey and the disease that such people suffer from!

 

Have to admit, I've been susceptible to GOGH since my late 20s.....!!

 

Jeff

[uax6]

I think that you have stumbled on a very good plan. If you raise the baseboard height so that you view it from about chin hieght (whats that on you Jeff? About 5'?) then you will have decent space to crawl though* to the other parts, and that NER fiddle yard (You WILL need more than a siding!) will be totally accessable.

 

* So when you get to OF status you aren't banjaxed by not being able to crawl through low holes any more!

 

I'm also in the camp for removing that cross over, you just don't need it.

 

Andy G

[Andrew P]

As a positive OF of ample girth and protesting knees, my comment was generated as I considered how I could operate such a layout - I bow to The Stationmaster in more ways than one and I feel the creaking and grinding every time, Whilst you are clearly of less advanced years, Grump-old-Git-hood creeps up on us all in time and brings with it the joys of restricted flexibility.

Hi Gruffalo, I had this conversation with Jeff, whilst on my Belly trying to crawl under KL and head butting his Knee Caps, hahha

 

I realy did struggle to get up and only a few years ago I was in  Rock Band, humping Bass amps around with no problem.

 

Once the basics of the new KL is finished YOUNG Jeff will be a good 3 to 4 years older, about the age I was when the Arthritis set in, its even hard to get down to duck under, let alone get up again.

 

Bodgit

[Andrew P]

Here's the first pics of the deconstruction...

 

The fiddle yard track arrangement before noon today (shown from Jan 13, without the Fell):

 

100_2521p.jpg

 

The state of it now:

 

100_4678p.jpg

 

100_4680.JPG

 

13 turnouts and Cobalt motors removed so far.

 

Jeff

Oh heck, there's no going back now Boss.

 

I wish I had room for all that timber, hhahaa

 

Bodg y

[The Stationmaster]

Nice to see an active conversation going on. We had the same discussion over 350 pages back re. the crossover....

 

As for the NER fiddle yard, well, in principle there doesn't actually have to be one! I could include a long siding, the length of the section that's behind the Fell....and I'm sure that would do. I can't see the layout being actively run for the NER's behalf - the addition is only "cosmetic" (and gives me an excuse to buy more locos!!) Most of the action will be on the S&C main line and in the goods yard.

 

Mike - I love the term OF. Took me a while to work out. Are you REALLY that old? Rumour had it you were in your late 40s.... 

 

Jeff

 

The other use of 'OF' is to describe someone as an 'old f**t' of course.

 

Ah - 40, I can remember that - I was still on the Western Region then with another 4 years to go until the Region went the way of all good things in 1992.  Nowadays I just draw my pensions, although I do look inside the fence occasionally and put them right (which is probably just as well!).  

[Andrew P]

The other use of 'OF' is to describe someone as an 'old f**t' of course.

 

Ah - 40, I can remember that - I was still on the Western Region then with another 4 years to go until the Region went the way of all good things in 1992.  Nowadays I just draw my pensions, although I do look inside the fence occasionally and put them right (which is probably just as well!).  

Hi Mike, good job YOU DO, somebody has to.

 

Bodgit

[Physicsman]

It's "spot the difference" time!

 

I've actually transitioned the curve over the viaduct into the station and curved the platforms slightly. Ok, this is only an indicator of what could happen, but it looks fine to me.

 

And the top crossover has been removed.

 

 

Jeff

[Physicsman]

I think that you have stumbled on a very good plan. If you raise the baseboard height so that you view it from about chin hieght (whats that on you Jeff? About 5'?) then you will have decent space to crawl though* to the other parts, and that NER fiddle yard (You WILL need more than a siding!) will be totally accessable.

 

* So when you get to OF status you aren't banjaxed by not being able to crawl through low holes any more!

 

I'm also in the camp for removing that cross over, you just don't need it.

 

Andy G

 

5'!! You cheeky *&%%G%%$^^£"***!!!!

 

Actually, using Bodge as the prototype, we discussed this very matter. Eye level is supposed to be the best height for the baseboard, but I can't bring myself to have it quite that high. However, raising it from its current 120cm to, say 140cm would give a more dramatic view and improve access for OFs like Bodge, Mike and Gruff!!!!

 

The NER line would then be at around 120cm, so a decent crawl-through there, too.

 

I've already built myself a 20cm wooden box to stand on for KL. Looks like it'll need to double for KL2!

 

Jeff

[Physicsman]

Hi Gruffalo, I had this conversation with Jeff, whilst on my Belly trying to crawl under KL and head butting his Knee Caps, hahha

 

I realy did struggle to get up and only a few years ago I was in  Rock Band, humping Bass amps around with no problem.

 

Once the basics of the new KL is finished YOUNG Jeff will be a good 3 to 4 years older, about the age I was when the Arthritis set in, its even hard to get down to duck under, let alone get up again.

 

Bodgit

 

Tell you what, Andy - I'll subcontract the work to you. In that case I'd expect the layout to be completed BEFORE the main house I'm moving into has been built!!

 

Jeff

[Mrkirtley800]

The only instance when you would need that crossover is if some trains terminated at K-L. My own station has a similar track layout - based, in my case, on Lazonby but going under the name of Embsay Canal Road, - but I have installed a crossover in a similar spot. The idea being that further up the line, a branch diverges and so the branch passenger trains terminate/run round etc in Canal Road. I didn't want to use the loop in the yard to shunt passenger trains, it is usually full of wagons anyway. The arrangement allows a variation in stock, 6 wheeled carriages used alongside corridor coaches My railway is supposed to be pre group (1908)so there would still be a fair few 6-wheelers around.

Using Canal Road as a terminus and a through station does cause some smart working at times, even though in reality there would have been a decent interval between trains (that is in a normal working day ).

Derek

[Andrew P]

5'!! You cheeky *&%%G%%$^^£"***!!!!

 

Actually, using Bodge as the prototype, we discussed this very matter. Eye level is supposed to be the best height for the baseboard, but I can't bring myself to have it quite that high. However, raising it from its current 120cm to, say 140cm would give a more dramatic view and improve access for OFs like Bodge, Mike and Gruff!!!!

 

The NER line would then be at around 120cm, so a decent crawl-through there, too.

 

I've already built myself a 20cm wooden box to stand on for KL. Looks like it'll need to double for KL2!

 

Jeff

JEFF, THIS OF don't understand foreign talk, so can we  I have it again in plain good old fashioned ENGLISH please

 

O.F.Bodgit

 

EDIT=  inches please

Edited November 27, 2013 by Andrew P