Main line through station in N

[jamespetts]

TonyMay - thank you for pointing that out. I think that Dagworth's latest design for this seems to be the best so far, so, when I get a moment, I will update my SCARM file to reflect that design, which does not appear to have the flaw to which you referred.

[Joseph_Pestell]

Thank you for your thoughts. I have doubts that a separation of only 150mm between the levels of the OO gauge layout would be workable given the need to access all of the pointwork for wiring/point motors on the upper layer. However, having spoken this evening to somebody at The Model Railway Club, I am assured that a 400mm separation should be sufficient provided that the layout be wired sensibly.

 

It all depends how you choose to build the boards. But plenty of layouts have been with multiple layers much closer than this. It's just a matter of designing things so that they can be moved out of the way when necessary.

[Joseph_Pestell]

At the moment for running you have both return loops running clockwise.  That's OK for the right hand loop but the left hand return loop needs to run the other way round, i.e. anti-clockwise so that you don't end up with long trains running into themselves.  You then need to adjust the fan of points leading to the anti-clockwise storage lines to fit.

That's rather the point of the way that I drew it (#65). The loops are long enough for all trains and can be taken in either direction.

[jamespetts]

I have now redrawn the design for this in SCARM according to the recent suggestions:

 

 

I have also reduced the total width from 900mm to 860mm by reducing the dead space at the back.

 

In terms of the heights of this and the other layout, a possibly workable plan may be to have this layout modular and mountable either on the wall or on trestles. The layout could be divided into three sections at 1040mm, 3000mm, and 5790mm (those all being axes which bisect no points). This would then allow the layout to be broken down and stored when not in use. This would, in turn, allow a much smaller separation between this and the upper level of the OO gauge layout than might otherwise be possible; it would also allow easy access for wiring and work by mounting single sections on a trestle at once.

 

The heights could thus be as follows:

OO gauge lower: 750mm

OO gauge upper: 1,300mm (550mm separation)

N gauge: 1,600mm (300mm separation)

 

The N gauge layout would be quite high at 1,600mm, but would be narrower than before, and things at the back could be reached with the use of a stool. The highness would be less of a problem with working on the layout, as it could be dismantled. Also, the separation between this and the OO gauge layout would be less of an issue, as they would not be intended to be used at the same time.

 

Can I ask - is this feasible? I notice that a number of members describe having dismantl-able layouts, and this seems to be a common theme. Does this make sense as an idea, or is the amount of work involved in setting it up and breaking it down excessive?

 

I should hate not to be able to go ahead with this layout (it would be very useful to practise modelling on a smaller layout before starting on the large OO gauge plan (which might need modifying in light of experience gained doing this), and it would be splendid to be able to model the railway scene as I recall when I was a boy.

 

Thoughts on the new track plan and the practicality of the modular arrangement would be much appreciated.

[Dagworth]

I have now redrawn the design for this in SCARM according to the recent suggestions:

 

 

I have also reduced the total width from 900mm to 860mm by reducing the dead space at the back.

 

You've still got the same error in the dark green fiddleyard, you need to rearrange the points as per my drawing so all roads are the same length

 

Andi

['CHARD]

There looks like a few years' work in this tester layout, unless I've got double vision - not impossible at this hour!  

 

 

 

EDIT: I just roughly counted nearly 70 switches/ crossings, so £700 for them and a further £325 or so for point motors.  Hardly a suck-it-and see starter by anyone's standards.

Edited March 4, 2018 by 'CHARD

[mightbe]

It looks like a slight mistake was made on the left hand side--the / track should connect to the end of the light green yard, not the outer loop. Other than what's mentioned above the FY looks really quite good.

[Satan's Goldfish]

By no stretch of the imagination a small 'starter' layout, but a good plan none the less. (I'm still tinkering with that station plan in my head, quite like it for operational variety).

[njee20]

Yes, I thought the plan was to try things out with a modest n gauge layout, so you can apply the skills to your OO gauge behemoth?

 

You basically now have two extremely ambitious layouts planned, simultaneously...

 

If you worried about the time to build one of them then doubling up seems a very strange choice!

Edited March 4, 2018 by njee20

[Joseph_Pestell]

There looks like a few years' work in this tester layout, unless I've got double vision - not impossible at this hour!  

 

 

 

EDIT: I just roughly counted nearly 70 switches/ crossings, so £700 for them and a further £325 or so for point motors.  Hardly a suck-it-and see starter by anyone's standards.

 

Yes, and it never was with a 7m long N gauge layout. But he does not need to lay all the track and pointwork right from the start.

[jamespetts]

Thank you for your replies: that is most helpful. Here is a version with the suggested changes made:

 

 

In relation to the size of the layout, I designed it thus because, if I were going to have a second layout, I wanted it to be a layout that I should actually want to use and and should enjoy using. Something very simple is unlikely to be satisfying for me.

 

I could, perhaps, revert to the other idea of simply building a test track as a practice run before attempting to build an actual layout? That could be a simple 1.5m long strip with three tracks, two connected to one another by a crossover at one end, and the other, separate, track, being connected to an analogue controller so that I can have an analogue track for testing purposes?

 

Incidentally, has anyone any thoughts on the issue of level separation and disassembly? This is probably the more important issue in deciding whether to build this layout at all or not. I realised last night that this layout is wider than the plan is for the lower level of the OO gauge layout to be high, so it would not be able to be stored under the OO gauge layout turned on its side: it would have to be stored flat on the floor, which would take up the whole space underneath the OO gauge layout. Indeed, the previous design would have actually been wider than the OO layout at the left hand end so that it would have stuck out and been liable to damage when on the floor. I have amended the design to narrow it at the left hand side, which should not cause scenic difficulties if we imagine the station building (and possibly car park) at the right hand side, and just platforms on the left.

 

Any thoughts on this issue would be most helpful.

[Dagworth]

Suggestions on the layout design:

 

Curve the whole scenic track towards the backscene, it will look so much better aesthetically.

 

Connect the branch to the main line offscene and scrap the small fiddle yard, then you can run freight up the branch and not have to worry about space in the fiddle yard for it

 

Andi

[jamespetts]

Thank you for your suggestions. I am not sure about curving the main part - it is harder to get the pointwork aligned on curved track. As to the branch fiddle yard would connecting this not cause more conflicting movements? The plan is to run only DMUs on the branch line.

[Dagworth]

Thank you for your suggestions. I am not sure about curving the main part - it is harder to get the pointwork aligned on curved track. As to the branch fiddle yard would connecting this not cause more conflicting movements? The plan is to run only DMUs on the branch line.

In the scenic length you've got you wouldn't even notice if the points themselves were not curved, you'd be looking at a curve radius of about 40 metres or more, not enough to affect trackwork but enough to look much more natural. Peco points have enough flex that the will curve to that radius no problem.

Ravensclyffe has NO visible straight track!

 

Andi

[Satan's Goldfish]

For what it's worth, here's how i imagine it/ how i'd do it:

 

 

I haven't paid too much attention to scale (although it looks close enough to me!) and i know there's no return loops in the Fiddle Yard, that's just my personal preference. 

 

Lots of urban scenery, big concave curve for the station but straightening out at the 'London' end for some variation. Added some extra (probably dissused) bay platforms, but other wise the plan is the same. the carriage sidings have been reduced to just a couple of stabling roads (urban land is expensive) and i'm imagining there's more yard and loco facilities a little further down the line at the edge of town, at the junction.

 

Ref freight on the branch, it would be easy to have 2 identical MGR sets with identical engine on each. but one would be loaded and travel off the branch, and the other would be empty traveling onto the branch. this creates the illusion that loading is happening off scene and it's the same train.

 

Edit: visually, it should look as if platforms 7 and 8 were originally 1 long through platform, however it's been severed with new station facilities and car park on dissused railway land.

Edited March 4, 2018 by Satan's Goldfish

[jamespetts]

A very interesting plan. That is probably not how I should do it because of my preference for reversing loops and for more carriage sidings (as Oxford actually had - the station was on the edge of the town), but it does look good. Thank you for sharing that.

 

I should note that I am uncertain as to whether it will be practical to build this in the shed in addition to the other layout, but I shall have to see what the position is when the shed is more advanced.

[jamespetts]

Given that the current plan is for a single layer OO gauge layout (one purpose of which was precisely to accommodate this layout), I am quite keen to proceed with this, especially as I seem to have managed to win an eBay auction for a Dapol HST in InterCity Executive livery, which are really rather hard to get hold of.

 

There is much to like about the Satan's Goldfish's plan above, but the lack of reversing loops would not suit my purposes. I wonder whether there may be some scope for combining elements of the both?

 

I wonder whether there may be some advantage to building this one before the OO gauge layout while I wait for Peco Bullhead slips and crossings to become available.

Edited March 28, 2018 by jamespetts

[Satan's Goldfish]

I don't think I drew that to your maximum length, so there is some slop in the ends if you really want the loops.

[jamespetts]

Ahh, yes, I see - you drew it to about 7.05m, whereas I have 7.5m available. Did you produce that in SCARM or similar that I may have the file to modify?

[Satan's Goldfish]

It's on xtrak CAD (then doodled on in m&s paint for colour), I don't know if xtrak is SCARM compatible.

[Satan's Goldfish]

It's in an xtc format if that works for you.

 

Through N Gauge.xtc

[jamespetts]

I do not think that I have anything to read that format - thank you for uploading, however.

[jamespetts]

I have now modified this design a little to take on board some elements of Satan's Goldfish's design, and also to add a further pair of tracks to the fiddle yards and make the representation of the scenic areas, platforms and station buildings more explicit.

 

I have retained the original straight layout in part because this will be easier to lay, in part because this is intended to represent a railway through a relatively flat part of the country (hence the level crossing), and in part because I want to have HSTs passing through at a scale 125mph, as would be possible on a nice straight section of track.

 

I should be grateful for any views on the revised plan, especially on: (1) the placement of the level crossing; (2) the track layout with respect to the parcels dock (I am trying to take inspiration from Oxford for this, but it is hard to find the old track layouts for the parcels dock from when it was in use); and (3) the replacement of the diamond crossing on the right hand/north side of the station with a pair of large radius sets of points.

 

[jamespetts]

I have revised this slightly to allow for HSTs and DMUs to cross over to the other side's fiddle yards and reverse without using the reversing loops, which are really only relevant for locomotive hauled trains. This will allow the first class on HSTs to remain oriented towards London and possibly reduce the number of conflicting movements in the fiddle yards. I have also added provision for a separate parcels building near the parcels dock and added some signals.

 

[jamespetts]

Having spent some time looking into services from Oxford in the late 1980s, I have redesigned the layout at the right hand side somewhat to allow main line trains to terminate in the bay platform (as Banbury to Oxford locals did at the time, the Bicester Town trains actually running on to Reading).

 

I have also added a little extra locomotive stabling (I have seen photographs of Class 08 shunters in Oxford in the late 1980s - presumably for shunting carriages into the parcels dock) and also removed the level crossing, as I suspect that this would be a little fiddly.

 

The revised layout is below:

 

 

I wonder whether it might be worthwhile having some further sidings (perhaps even disused sidings) on the lower right hand side?