Referring to the attached PDF, a snapshot of my latest layout draft, the way I'm designing my sidings is as per example A, so I can drive the train forwards into the sidings from the mainline, and drive forwards onto the main line.

However when I look at sample layouts, they mostly seem to be more like Example B where (depending on direction) you exit the main line forwards and enter it in reverse (or vice versa).

Is there any reason for this, other than saving costs, or am I missing something obvious?

Thanks - Richard

Another of those questions where there isn't a right or wrong answer.

There are a lot of factors that will determine the layout including:

• Volume of traffic in to the sidings.
• volume of traffic passing on the main line.
• Space available.
• whether the sidings have a dedicated shunter or are shunted by the train engine.
• what era? - there is a tendency to simplify and economise in more recent eras.

The only advice is look at the prototype and follow what they did.

I'd go for option A, giving you direct exit to the main line to the right or by use of the headshunt before exiting to the left.   I'd want to avoid reversing out onto a main line.

It also depends how you arrange for the train loco to swap ends if necessary, ie. if returning in the direction it came from originally.

The way I see it a train heading east can reverse into the sidings having run 'wrong line' and therefore can be driven out.
In both examples a train heading west is going to end up driving into the sidings so the loco will end up against the buffers. Also, in both examples, I think the crossover at the RHS is redundant.
The only way I can see a train heading west being pushed into the sidings is to drop the train at the entrance to the sidings and run round the length of the train to use a crossover further along the main lines.

I suggest you look at signal box diagrams on the SRS to get an idea how the real railway did things.   https://www.s-r-s.org.uk/home.php

After the mid Victorian period facing crossovers (the one on the left of both diagrams) were frowned on on safety grounds - potential for head on collisions. So I would remove them for prototypical accuracy, unless you are modelling a modern line.

NNs point about trapping locos is very valid. Also most goods trains ( I assume this is a goods yard) were reversed into the yard or the refuge siding. During WW2 many refuges were converted into goods running loops.

What era/company/region are you planning? Knowing that may well help you adopt a prototypical track plan. Or is it a Rule 1 layout?

Norman

Your ideas reminds me of the sidings for the fuel depot at Hethersett, Norfolk (see http://www.ukairfields.org.uk/hethersett.html for a few pictures taken prior to the removal of access to the headshunt off the west-bound line). The depot opened in time for WW2 and served RAF bases in the area and closed c.1980, but last time I went passed (last year) the sidings and headshunt were still in situ.

I'd go for Option A, but with only one access to the headshunt, the one from the left (after all most railway companies preferred trailing access to sidings), and shift the right hand cross-over moved closer to the entrance to the headshunt. But in the end the choice is yours.

Some interesting thoughts there folks that are helping me to sort out my ideas, thankyou.

Since I'm using kato with electric points it makes sense to use option B and see how it goes (less dosh to splash out at the outset.)

The crossovers, are there to provide a link between the two main lines, and might be left out initially or moved elsewhere to give a longer straight run-in to them (see how it goes). Thinking about "normal" direction of travel they may be redundant anyway to some extent, and could be used elsewhere (and save more dosh) while I get used to running trains once I've built the layout.

"Rule 1" - is that = "Make it up as you go along and never mind prototypes" - if so that describes what I'm having fun doing, playing "what if's" with Anyrail!