j p wrote:LVG1 wrote:j p wrote:..., hopefully you'd get the message)
No, unfortunately I have no idea what you're aiming to achieve with your suggestion.
Of course, the eastern through track needs a connection to the western station tracks, too. But that's what you eliminated in your last picture...
Those are 2 lines.
My suggestion which eliminates all the problems is above your post :)
OK. Drawing does not help, I can try to explain the problem with your suggestion in writing:
...
Okay, now I've understood what you mean.
I presumed that the third track was the through track for the upper line. So I didn't realize that you came from another view on this point. I already had remarked my concerns about through tracks leading over the bended way of turnouts.
However, this solution is very rare but possible.
Regarding your suggestions:
Double connections with a diamont in the middle—is there a technical term for them in English?—have been almost completely removed especially after World War II. Only very few of them still exist.
They are an eye-catcher on every model railroad layout. So it would be nice to have one. But having more than one on a layout with postwar topic would look quite strange in my eyes. So at least for one of the station's entraces another solution should be looked for.
ConducTTor wrote:Is it prototypical to have switches on bridges?
That's an excellent question.
The answer is:
YES and NO.
You'll have to consider two things—surroundings and construction.
You'll find turnouts on bridges (almost) only in areas with high building density and few space.
The reason is simple—you need bridges with a high sturdiness in
all directions. And they are clearly more expensive than usual bridges or embankments.
Does the topic of voyttek's layout fit this description?
I'ld say: No!
Nowadays, you'll find turnouts on bridges (almost) only if the bridge is made of concrete. They are closed flat constructions with lots of supports beneath which are independent of load spreading and cross forces.
More than half a century ago, there were turnouts also installed on steel bridges of elevated heavyrail lines (known as Metro and U-Bahn, respectively, in Europe). But also these steel bridges were constructions with lots of supports and lots of diagonal bracings for high transverse rigidity.
Unfortunately, that's not the type of bridges voyttek uses. Most bridges—especially suspension bridges, most types of lattice girder bridges, fish beam bridges and all types of bridges mainly based on longitudinal carriers (which fits almost all steel bridges)—are constructed for straight track only. A train changing the track on them would seriously endanger the stability of the bridge.
So, would a turnout be placed on a bridge of voyttek's construction?
No way!!!voyttek wrote:Also I wonder if I were to even widen the bridges somehow, ...
Bridges are expensive structures on a rail line. So they're constructed as space and material saving as functional. That's why they are never wider than absolutely necessary. So I'ld suggest to
not widen them.
voyttek wrote:Coming to Canada ???
Great idea!!!
I'ld love to see Canada!
Unfortunately, I'm currently waiting for money from my mom, because I even can't afford a ticket for the 100-mile homebound trip...

I'm continuing to think about solutions for the station's entraces.
Possibly, you could change the relevance of the various tracks. Currently, tracks two and three are supposed to be the through tracks. May be, tracks one and two or tracks one and three could take this task? Or not?
I'll think about this furthermore. And when I have an idea, I'll post it.