bensanchez43310 Posted June 5, 2017 Share Posted June 5, 2017 Hi all, I'm making a 12x8 roundy based around the Willesden/Wembley area, I have a track plan but would like a second opinion to improve it before I build it this summer. I am going to use smaller baseboards combined to enable it to be taken apart and stored easily. I would just like come advice on it in general. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stivesnick Posted June 5, 2017 Share Posted June 5, 2017 Hi Ben It would be worth understanding what you are trying to achieve. At present, it looks like you have a double track main line with loop tracks at the station which would allow fast trains to overtake stopping services. Are the sidings at the bottom of the plan meant to be a general fiddle yard or is it a freight yard? It would be worth adjusting the plan to allow access to these tracks from both directions on the main line. Could you also explain the idea behind the sidings at the top of the plan. Regards Nick Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bensanchez43310 Posted June 5, 2017 Author Share Posted June 5, 2017 Hi Ben It would be worth understanding what you are trying to achieve. At present, it looks like you have a double track main line with loop tracks at the station which would allow fast trains to overtake stopping services. Are the sidings at the bottom of the plan meant to be a general fiddle yard or is it a freight yard? It would be worth adjusting the plan to allow access to these tracks from both directions on the main line. Could you also explain the idea behind the sidings at the top of the plan. Regards Nick Evening Nick, my bad, the labels dotted around aren't clear. Let me explain it then working from the top down. 1) the 'sidings' at the top will be a TMD of sorts, with both sides being accessible from both platform end and coming out of the yard, allows double header formations to enter easier and it is placed on the edge so I can save money on boards and have a larger operating well. 2) The mainline and station is set out to function as mentioned by you, with the bottom platform as it were having sidings to accommodate a thunderbird loco/general holding sidings for the loco. 3) The bottom yard area is set out to handle all forms of freight, mainly intermodals and van traffic from the tunnel, but also domestic freights seen currently etc, and to clarify as per the question, the yard will be used for freight with the long siding to the extreme right of the plan being for wagon storage and removing trains and placing them on the layout. I may follow up on your point of adapting the yard to allow both ends to access, as the top platform was going to be used as the reversing siding for trains in and out, to increase shunt moves and locos in and out of the TMD. Hope this explains the ideas. Ben Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
eatus-maximus Posted June 7, 2017 Share Posted June 7, 2017 (edited) Hi all, I'm making a 12x8 roundy based around the Willesden/Wembley area, I have a track plan but would like a second opinion to improve it before I build it this summer. I am going to use smaller baseboards combined to enable it to be taken apart and stored easily. I would just like come advice on it in general. SCARM.PNG First off, the usual disclaimer that this is all just my opinion and it's your railway. Have you considered where your passenger trains will go when you are not using them? I personally think you need to re-evaluate some of the space efficiencies. In some areas I think there is too much track, like you really need to fit stuff in, and in other places it's a bit 'barren'. Is there a reason you have avoided pointwork on the curves of the mainline? The first change I'd make concerns the junction on the left side, and the pointwork on the lower part of the mainline. Starting with the lower mainline section, why are the points there? what function do they serve? Could they go on the curve to their left, nearer the other pointwork? As for the junction on the left, it looks like an accident waiting to happen. The two mainlines should be as straight as possible really and the two points on the centre line don't really serve a purpose (other than a 'Addams Family' style wreck). My choice would be a right-hand point bringing the lower platform loop line onto the mainline just after the upper curve, with the 'toe' (single track end) connecting to the curved line ('ankle') of another right-hand point which would feed into the lower curve and the previously mentioned lower edge crossover (long straight left point into curved point there I think). The straight edge ('heel') of the second point should then join with the 'ankle' of a left hand point on the outer mainline. Above that, on the upper curve, a left hand point should be provided for access to the sidings at the bottom ('ankle' to mainline, 'toe' to station, 'heel' to sidings). If you have to put it on the straight section use a right-hand point. On the sidings at the bottom, I'd experiment with more curved points, you should be able to get more length on each siding with less visual impact. The sidings and general station area could use a little work in my opinion. I think you have too much here and what you have is very straight, it doesn't have the right 'feeling' for me and I think when you lay it out you'll think you could have done better. On the left, have one siding (or head-shunt if you prefer) and consider linking it to the lower sidings, even if it forms one long double ended siding. On the right side I'd consider linking one of the parallel sidings to the long line you have running up the right hand side. You might also want to add in a crossover on the mainline curve approaching the station for freight to use to access the lower sidings when running anti-clockwise on the mainline, running the freight through the platform loop rather than on the clockwise mainline. I would also consider moving some of the pointwork onto the curve to give you a bit more platform length. You should also consider the use of flexible track, even if it is the Hornby R621 stuff, it is, as the name implies, more flexible. One final consideration I think you should have is putting the lower platform between the 'platform line' and the mainline, and perhaps even do the same with the upper platform. I think this would give the layout more 'flow' if done with flexible track too. There's nothing wrong with having two designated through lines like in your plan, but more platforms is more flexibility in my view. Edited June 7, 2017 by eatus-maximus Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bensanchez43310 Posted June 7, 2017 Author Share Posted June 7, 2017 (edited) First off, the usual disclaimer that this is all just my opinion and it's your railway. Have you considered where your passenger trains will go when you are not using them? I personally think you need to re-evaluate some of the space efficiencies. In some areas I think there is too much track, like you really need to fit stuff in, and in other places it's a bit 'barren'. Is there a reason you have avoided pointwork on the curves of the mainline? The first change I'd make concerns the junction on the left side, and the pointwork on the lower part of the mainline. Starting with the lower mainline section, why are the points there? what function do they serve? Could they go on the curve to their left, nearer the other pointwork? As for the junction on the left, it looks like an accident waiting to happen. The two mainlines should be as straight as possible really and the two points on the centre line don't really serve a purpose (other than a 'Addams Family' style wreck). My choice would be a right-hand point bringing the lower platform loop line onto the mainline just after the upper curve, with the 'toe' (single track end) connecting to the curved line ('ankle') of another right-hand point which would feed into the lower curve and the previously mentioned lower edge crossover (long straight left point into curved point there I think). The straight edge ('heel') of the second point should then join with the 'ankle' of a left hand point on the outer mainline. Above that, on the upper curve, a left hand point should be provided for access to the sidings at the bottom ('ankle' to mainline, 'toe' to station, 'heel' to sidings). If you have to put it on the straight section use a right-hand point. On the sidings at the bottom, I'd experiment with more curved points, you should be able to get more length on each siding with less visual impact. The sidings and general station area could use a little work in my opinion. I think you have too much here and what you have is very straight, it doesn't have the right 'feeling' for me and I think when you lay it out you'll think you could have done better. On the left, have one siding (or head-shunt if you prefer) and consider linking it to the lower sidings, even if it forms one long double ended siding. On the right side I'd consider linking one of the parallel sidings to the long line you have running up the right hand side. You might also want to add in a crossover on the mainline curve approaching the station for freight to use to access the lower sidings when running anti-clockwise on the mainline, running the freight through the platform loop rather than on the clockwise mainline. I would also consider moving some of the pointwork onto the curve to give you a bit more platform length. You should also consider the use of flexible track, even if it is the Hornby R621 stuff, it is, as the name implies, more flexible. One final consideration I think you should have is putting the lower platform between the 'platform line' and the mainline, and perhaps even do the same with the upper platform. I think this would give the layout more 'flow' if done with flexible track too. There's nothing wrong with having two designated through lines like in your plan, but more platforms is more flexibility in my view. Morning, I would like to start off by saying flexitrack is used in places, just on SCARM it doesn't show its product code when its placed into shape. I will definitely look into the pointwork and spacing as the layout stands at 12x8 currently, I will definitely look at the way the track has been spaced out and I appreciate your opinion, just what I was after as I was unsure of the pointwork. Also I do like your idea of the station being inbetween the mainline and stopping tracks, it just didn't flow when I designed it at first. Thanks for your comments. I will start the redesign soon. *Edit- passenger trains will be taken off when not used, its not designed to have all stock on at the same time, but I may build some carriage sidings.* Ben Edited June 7, 2017 by bensanchez43310 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bensanchez43310 Posted June 7, 2017 Author Share Posted June 7, 2017 Here is the revised version, slightly higher track count and i think its rather chanced, is this better? Ben Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bensanchez43310 Posted June 7, 2017 Author Share Posted June 7, 2017 I think this may help explain it better... Ben 3 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stivesnick Posted June 7, 2017 Share Posted June 7, 2017 Hi Ben The new plan is much better, but still some questions you might like to consider. 1. How does the container terminal operate? At present trains would have to reverse in, which would block the main line so not favoured on the real railway. You could either turn the sidings into through sidings or add another crossover on the bottom right curve to allow trains moving clockwise to enter the terminal. I would turn to 2 tracks into a run round loop to allow the loco to be released. On departure the train could run round to the dark blue sidings and then reverse. 2. The MPD - do you expect to run locos between the dark blue sidings and the depot as it is difficult to do at present? One way of do this would be to move the point to the carriage sidings the other side of the crossover so that locos to run into start of the carriage sidings then reverse without blocking the mainline. If space allows, you could add a relief track between the carriage sidings and the depot which again would keep the light engine movements off the main line. 3. The yard - will you be doing lots of shunting on these tracks? - If so a headshunt at one end to keep the shunting activities off the mainline would help. Hope this is useful Nick Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bensanchez43310 Posted June 7, 2017 Author Share Posted June 7, 2017 Hi Ben The new plan is much better, but still some questions you might like to consider. 1. How does the container terminal operate? At present trains would have to reverse in, which would block the main line so not favoured on the real railway. You could either turn the sidings into through sidings or add another crossover on the bottom right curve to allow trains moving clockwise to enter the terminal. I would turn to 2 tracks into a run round loop to allow the loco to be released. On departure the train could run round to the dark blue sidings and then reverse. 2. The MPD - do you expect to run locos between the dark blue sidings and the depot as it is difficult to do at present? One way of do this would be to move the point to the carriage sidings the other side of the crossover so that locos to run into start of the carriage sidings then reverse without blocking the mainline. If space allows, you could add a relief track between the carriage sidings and the depot which again would keep the light engine movements off the main line. 3. The yard - will you be doing lots of shunting on these tracks? - If so a headshunt at one end to keep the shunting activities off the mainline would help. Hope this is useful Nick Cheers yet again for your input, I'm glad the new plan is improved and will finalise these last few bits, yet again thanks for the input. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bensanchez43310 Posted June 8, 2017 Author Share Posted June 8, 2017 This is final, with the TMD now being accesible from both ends, and trains being able to be held in the loop/siding. Ben 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bensanchez43310 Posted June 11, 2017 Author Share Posted June 11, 2017 Since i included the intermodal yard, i have done some work on the layout to reduce it in soze slightly, Not sure if this is for the best and i would like your opinions on this, but the C.S. has been incorporated into an extension of the line into the TMD and intermodal yard, where freight and passneger tains can reside. Also reduced the station and yard in size because of the extra capacity by the intermodal yard, is this better or should i retain the higher capacity. Also, what is the best coupling system to use for DC/DCC as I want o run sme enterprise trains and wagonload from the continent. What is recommended? Ben 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
LongRail Posted June 13, 2017 Share Posted June 13, 2017 Ben I think the layout before the last one is best and offers more play value Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
LongRail Posted June 13, 2017 Share Posted June 13, 2017 Ben suggest you work through the operations you want too see if the layout satisfy your needs. It is good if some moves are more difficult perhaps requiring 2 or three shunts to complete a move which will retain operational interest. The short headshunts dotted around will be useful place to put the odd loco or a few wagons when you are moving things around or want to put something out of the way. It's all about having fun Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold unravelled Posted June 13, 2017 RMweb Gold Share Posted June 13, 2017 The one thing I'd want to alter is the arrangement of the two crossovers at the right hand side. If the crossover between the outer curcuit and goods area/headshunt could be moved below the crossover between inner and outer circuits, it would allow trains from the loops to access the inner circuit. This arrangement existed in the plan from post 7, but without the headshunt. Thanks Dave Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
LongRail Posted June 13, 2017 Share Posted June 13, 2017 Dave makes a good point Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wigan Wallgate OO Gauge Posted June 14, 2017 Share Posted June 14, 2017 Certainly looks promising! Be good to see a new modern image layout Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bensanchez43310 Posted June 14, 2017 Author Share Posted June 14, 2017 The one thing I'd want to alter is the arrangement of the two crossovers at the right hand side. If the crossover between the outer curcuit and goods area/headshunt could be moved below the crossover between inner and outer circuits, it would allow trains from the loops to access the inner circuit. This arrangement existed in the plan from post 7, but without the headshunt. Thanks Dave Dave makes a good point I agree, but when I played around with the track slightly to remove the flexi-track curves and replace with set tracks, the crossover didn't fit before the original points, so they have been moved up with the crossovers just before the station. Ben Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bensanchez43310 Posted June 14, 2017 Author Share Posted June 14, 2017 I think this shows it better. Ben Certainly looks promising! Be good to see a new modern image layout Thanks mate, this is my first proper layout so it wont be the best, but its something for me. Ben 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Midnight-Freight Posted September 27, 2018 Share Posted September 27, 2018 Really like your track plan. Look forward to seeing your progress. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now