Ballykeen Road

[krose]

Lads starting my first layout and I'm after a bit of advise. The board is 2400mm x 400mm. The scene is fictions and set somewhere in the west of Ireland. I have a single mainline running through the board with a line into the fueling area (paint tins) and a water tower (white box). There is a double line into a maintenance shed ( black box). There is also a line to the right of the mainline as a fuel discharge point and maybe Shell/Esso oil depot.

Bearing in mind that it's Irish and I want it as realistic as possible your comments & advise on the layout are welcome.

Slagging is optional...

 

 

 

Karl

 

PS i will be changing the points to Peko to match the flexitrack 100

[Dave]

Hi Karl. You can't get concrete sleeper code 100 points. They are only available in code 75 and even then they are only the medium points!

[krose]

Thanks Dave.

When did concrete sleepers come into use in Ireland? Should I be doing all my trackwork in timber?

[Garfield]

Concrete sleepers have been around for a few decades but points with concrete sleepers have only become widespread in the last 10 years or so. The impact of the train wheels on the pointwork was absorbed better by wooden sleepers than they were by standard concrete ones until the design improved...

Edited November 12, 2016 by Garfield

[DiveController]

Is there a time frame that you'd prefer this to be set in? It seems like your locos are Supertrain and IR which would put your timeframe in the 1970s- mid-90s. This might be useful

http://irishrailwaymodeller.com/content.php/368-CIE-to-Iarnrod-Eireann-Timeline

 

I presume the water tower is a remnant from pre-dieselisation or maybe for passing IRRS railtours etc?

If you develop the Oil Depot you may wish to ensure that you have enough room to get the wagons onto the mainline with sidings to shunt and store full and empty wagons. The components of the MPD should connect to each other and maybe to the Oil depot as well as the mainline

Edited November 12, 2016 by DiveController

[krose]

Your spot on Dive its set around the 80's/90's.

I'm hope to try scratch build the water tower and shed.

I'm thinking of going for a wider board and maybe Continuing the main line around behind the rafters to allow me to run trains on a loop. Maybe add a fiddle yard.

Im a bit of a novice so when you say the components of the MPD should connect to each other, should I add a line from the refuelling siding to the first line into the shed or both?

[jhb171achill]

Among the earliest concrete sleepers were in the 1950s on the GNR main line. A rural area in the west of Ireland is unlikely to have had concrete in sidings until very recently. As said by others, points were wooden, even among a sea of concrete track, until the last few years. The timber points are accurate for your timescale.

[jhb171achill]

The slagging starts: unless you're from Britain, an "MPD" is a type of UTA railcar, not a locomotive shed..,

[jhb171achill]

Jhb171senior recalled an experiment with about a third of a kilometre of concrete sleepered track on the INW about 1954... somewhere near Inniskeen, I think.

[krose]

Thanks for that Jonathan. You say sidings wouldn't have been concrete until recently, would the main line have been concrete in the 80s-90s?

As for the UTA MPDs unfortunately I had to Google them. They're a rare breed especially the double cab.

[DiveController]

Slagging is optional...

Apparently, it's not;) Anyway, JB, I used the term Motive Power Depot as I couldn't be bothered to type it all out on the go. It's not just Multi Purpose Diesels that are a rare breed on the railways these days

Edited November 15, 2016 by DiveController

[DiveController]

Thanks for that Jonathan. You say sidings wouldn't have been concrete until recently, would the main line have been concrete in the 80s-90s?

As for the UTA MPDs unfortunately I had to Google them. They're a rare breed especially the double cab.

The Dublin-Cork mainline speeds increased to 90ph in 1984 and prior to that a substantial portion of the mainline was relaid with new track panels with concrete sleepers. One other area that had concrete sleepers in the late 70s would have been the single line from Tara mines, presumably as the old GNR track had been lifted, and if not would have been unsuitable for ore trains that weighed almost 900 tons.

[Mayner]

The change from jointed track on wooden sleepers to continuous welded rail on concrete sleepers (CWR) followed much the same pattern in Ireland to the UK.

 

The Irish main line companies experimented with composite concrete and steel sleepers as an alternative to timber during WW11 or the Emergency, concrete sleepers were widely used with jointed track on CIE, the GNR & UTA from the mid-1950s.

Main lines were gradually re-laid in CWR from the early 1970s onward this work was completed in the mid-2000s leaving a few secondary lines with jointed track on timber or concrete sleepers.

 

The Downpatrick line is laid in jointed track with bullhead rail on concrete sleepers salvaged from NIR, many of the concrete sleepers used by CIE in the 50s & 60s ended up in the coastal defence system on the South Eastern line between Greystones and Newcastle Co Wicklow.

 

Most yards were laid in jointed flatbottom track on timber sleepers, while concrete sleepered track and points are used at Drogheda Railcar Depot, the Eastwall Road marshalling yard was re-laid with jointed track on timber sleepers salvaged from the Shelton Abbey Marshalling Yard around the same time.

Once in use it become difficult to tell the difference from a distance because of weathering with brake dust and general grime.

 

Some photos from Heuston & Drogheda about 10-11 years ago

 

Main line crossover Drogheda

Concrete sleepered track and standard points railcar depot

Recently laid curved points on timber sleepers CWR on running line and sidings Heuston 2005

[krose]

Thanks for you comments and photos.

I have decided not to use the concrete sleepered track for the main scenic part of this project, its just not right for the period I'm modelling.

I also sat down last night reading over past conversations on the forum and I'm swayed towards using Peco Code 75 track.

Here's comes the daft question, can i use the the Code 100 track for the fiddle yard at the back or will i have to use 75 there also?

If possible how should I join the different codes?

Has anyone a photo of code 100 & 75 face-to-face so i can see the differences?

 

Thanks

[Broithe]

Thanks for you comments and photos.

I have decided not to use the concrete sleepered track for the main scenic part of this project, its just not right for the period I'm modelling.

I also sat down last night reading over past conversations on the forum and I'm swayed towards using Peco Code 75 track.

Here's comes the daft question, can i use the the Code 100 track for the fiddle yard at the back or will i have to use 75 there also?

If possible how should I join the different codes?

Has anyone a photo of code 100 & 75 face-to-face so i can see the differences?

 

Thanks

 

Peco do a 100/75 transition piece.

 

 

 

For comparison.

 

[krose]

[ATTACH=CONFIG]25899[/ATTACH]Thanks Broithe, that's exactly what i was looking for.

 

I spent some time today on Anyrail and moved the track around a bit.

 

I have increased the board size to 2400mm x 600mm with the single main line running around in loop to a fiddle yard.

Also going to go with Peco Finescale Code 75.

I plan to use the Roco Z21 controller for both loco & point control.

Any comments or problems you see are appreciated.

Edited November 16, 2016 by krose
Picture wrong

[krose]

[Broithe]

The 75 does 'look' better and, if all your wheels are 'modern', then you should have no issues with it.

[Glenderg]

threw it into CAD, scaled it up. If you put a 201 at the main line exit on the top left, it'll sit over the point blades. I assume you need it to work as a headshunt to push the oil wagons back into the storage area, or have I that wrong?

 

R.

[jhb171achill]

threw it into CAD, scaled it up. If you put a 201 at the main line exit on the top left, it'll sit over the point blades. I assume you need it to work as a headshunt to push the oil wagons back into the storage area, or have I that wrong?

 

R.

 

Is there even enough room up there (top left) to hold a loco and one wagon at a time to push into the siding for the fuel unloading area?

[jhb171achill]

Incidentally, how does that layout design software work? Would a techno-philistine like me be able to use it?

[krose]

I see what you mean. The loco and wagons can move almost out of the scene and then perform the headshunt, or I could add another line to the fuel unloading area to allow the loco to runaround.

I think these are my options?

[krose]

Jonathan I found the Anyrail software fairly easy to use. Just set the size of the board and start dropping the lengths of track onto it and moving them around.

[jhb171achill]

I see what you mean. The loco and wagons can move almost out of the scene and then perform the headshunt, or I could add another line to the fuel unloading area to allow the loco to runaround.

I think these are my options?

 

Does the track go beyond what's shown? The thing is, the headshunt has to be long enough for at least one locomotive plus wagon. If there's only room for one wagon behind the loco, they'll have to be shunted in and out one by one, which apart from being cumbersome is obviously not prototypical. Ideally, you'd need room for 5 or 6 wagons behind the loco, or a length of headshunt some metre or so long.

[krose]

Jonathan, the track goes around behind the scene in a loop.

i have updated the drawing to show this and added a loop into the siding.

 

Again comments are welcome.

Edited November 18, 2016 by krose

[ttc0169]

Looking good so far Karl,

Does it have to be an oil siding/depot-would you not consider a cement silo and a cement store where the ESSO depot is located? you would have more options with some bagged and bulk cement trains

A suggestion for the'TBC'area at the top, maybe do a branch line station-e.g. a passing loop and a siding or two with a loading bank, semaphore signals etc.

Then where you have the loco shed, put another short siding there for fuel oil deliveries for two-three oil tankers.

[jhb171achill]

Ah!! Karl, I didn't realise there was a complete circuit. in that case, none of my queries above apply at all, as you can reverse anything in. I thought it was a fiddle yard type of thing.

 

With that sort of layout above, you have various options. A passenger platform would be one. The loop in the oil area is optional. One on the main line road might be more prototypical and also more useful. The double loop station at the top could be like a South Wexford station, so passengers could be accommodated.

[DiveController]

I agree that a passing loop on the main line would add to the appeal and running. The refueling area line might be that with some modifications. Relocate the refueling area to bottom left or even right. If you keep them, maximize the length of your branch loops by extending the top road further right with a point releasing the loco back onto the bottom road.

[krose]

Thanks lads, Noel I kinda have my mind set on the oil depot but as you suggested I’m thinking of changing the loco shed to a goods shed or bagged cement store. I am going for a rural town scene so don’t think there will be to many towns with double loco sheds.

 

 

 

With this I would need to bring the watertower to the right a bit which would allow me to join the spur between it and the loco shed back to the main line.

 

I have no plans for the area at the top but most likely a station after i get the foreground scenery completed.

 

Lads thanks for your comments I nearly there with the plan, next up is spending the cash...

[David Holman]

Very sensible approach thus far. 'Less is more' is often the best way in layout design where avoiding the temptation to add too much track is always a good thing. Saves money too!

[krose]

Thanks for all the input so far.

 

Things have changed around a bit after getting help with the design.

 

 

I believe his revised design has more functionality and flexibility and fits in well to the setting of a rural Irish town.

 

I would be interested to hear your comments on the latest design.

[Noel]

Hi Karl, looks interesting. My only observation is that there is no passing loop which every small branch line station would have. You could place the passing loop in parallel with the station platform and connect the sidings with the loop. Use of curved points to connect the loop could save you a lot of linear space. Noel

[DiveController]

Hi Karl, looks interesting. My only observation is that there is no passing loop which every small branch line station would have. You could place the passing loop in parallel with the station platform and connect the sidings with the loop. Use of curved points to connect the loop could save you a lot of linear space. Noel

I'd agree with Noel and would bring it to the front of the layout but starting just to the right go the LC and joining just to the right of the branch line with a curved point. Double track LCs on the branch lines (main line in your layout) seemed less common than doubles. The SC, Fuel, Oil depot would move slightly forward.

Incidentally, your storage loops could be much longer if they started off the right hand back curve rather than confined to the 'back straight'

[krose]

Thanks Noel & Dive, is this what you mean?

 

 

I now probably need to add a second platform on the bottom side of the loop which may leave me tight for space.

I might have to lose one of the sidings into the goods area on the right to allow this to happen.

[Noel]

Hi Karl, yes that loop makes sense. You could connect the depot sidings at the end of the loop as depicted or 1/3 of the way down the outside of the loop. One platform would suffice for many branch stations that have low passenger traffic. One thing you could do is run the existing goods siding off the branch line along part of the other side of the platform. A one or two coach pax train could be stabled there. You have two goods sheds depicted on the first drawing, perhaps one would suffice behind the station for road access. Please take these suggestions with a huge 'pinch of salt', just my rambling thoughts. When planing a track layout, think of the operating traffic movements that you would like to operate/simulate for your preferred era. Noel