Jump to content
 
  • entries
    5
  • comments
    14
  • views
    864

Old Priory - 2 - Track Plan


Therealnips

420 views

With my plan of using a 40cm wide "shelf" to run most of the layout, I was um'ing and ar'ing over to run a double track or a quad track. I like the sound of a double track, more space for scenery on the "shelf" areas of the layout, but I also like the idea of four tracks running together. Brighton to Victoria is both, but I do like the four track sections between Haywards Heath and Gatwick. I have made a plan for four tracks after checking 40cm would be wide enough for 4 tracks. The picture still shows 30cm, but I just haven't updated it.

 

I wanted a big through station with express lines that don't stop and decided that had to be on the large board at the back of the loft. The board at 5m wide, should be fine for a nice long station. One side of the loft will be countryside (with possibly a smaller country station, which I have added to the plans, but maybe taken out). So the idea of trains rushing through past fields and cuttings before entering the tunnel that goes along the front wall of the loft behind the computers (loosely based on Balcombe tunnel). On the other side of the loft after the tunnel, I want it to be a vaguely industrial area that turns into a small depot/yard on the larger "shelf" board, maybe based on Threebridges depot.

 

With that in mind, I jumped onto SCARM and started playing around, 50 pieces at a time! In the end I came up with the current plan. I keep looking at it from time to time, making sure it's what I want, making sure it will work. The green sections are the fast lines, blue are the slow lines and red is the depot area. The track will be peco code 75 concrete sleep, with some bullhead in the depot and pointwork. I am planning to use gaugemaster PM-1 point motors with eletro-frog points. Traintech PC200 point controllers and train tech signals so that I can future-proof it for computer automation later on.

 

This project will be very slow as work gets in the way, I have an addiction to cars (I have two Nissan 300zx and they are not cheap!) and I work shifts, so some days I end up wasting because I finish 1-2am, then after one day off, move on to my early shifts starting at 3/4am. It's taken me 6 months to get to this point so far.

 

My total experience is owning an intercity 125 when I was a kid that my dad gave me for christmas, which stupidly I sold to buy a ticket to China! I have spent the past year watching the guys on youtube (Everard Junction, Dean Park Station, Charlie Bishop, etc). I like a challenge, but i suspect as its my first attempt, nothing will work out or look how I imagine it! I currently have a Class 57 that I got for Christmas, one bullhead left hand large point and one Hornby Mixed freight train set with most of the track missing that a friend bought for me last birthday!

 

I am all ears for ideas and input to my plans. The setup of the baseboards can't really change, but I open to ideas about the track plan!

Baseboard Layout.jpg

Layout Plan.jpg

Edited by Therealnips

  • Like 1

7 Comments


Recommended Comments

Hi,

 

You're lucky to have such a large space to build a layout.  The problem with the narrow shelf arrangement is that you get a very rectangular track plan. Don't be afraid of having track not parallel to the board edges.

 

Another few suggestions - does the headshunt by the double slip need to be longer, you need the same length behind the double slip as the longest siding.  Good news is that the track design provides trapping (runaway freight in the depot doesn't end up on the mainlines).

 

Add some wider intervals between the tracks. Standard arrangements usually have a wideway (or tenfoot) every other track for worker safety - it also provides space for signal posts. Look at your photo at the top, the bridges need a wider intervals too.

 

Is than minimum radius track at the corners - if you can ease those, you will get fewer derailments and smoother running.

 

Think about operability, presumably you want to get a freight (clockwise on outer line) into the depot without having to reverse it. Same for exiting. You might need to add / reverse some crossovers.

 

Do you want trains terminating at the big station? Make sure you can get from/to the appropriate lines. You don't want to be running wrong way for too far as it uses capacity on the real railway. 

 

Hope this helps - I'm not trying to be critical, just want to help you make a layout that does what you want it to.

 

Regards

 

Will

  • Like 1
Link to comment

Hi Will,

 

Thanks for the input. The track plan is a work in progress and I was hoping for some advice, so I have thought about making these changes: 

 

  • The straights I was planning on changing them to slight "s-Bends" with super elevation, to make it look better.
  • The turns at each corner are not minimum radius, but until I get the boards built and temporarily lay some track with a tracksetta, I don't know what they will be. I want them as gentle as possible in the space available to avoid issues.
  •  My SCARM skills are not the best so the plan is more of a rough guide rather than 100% accurate, same with the spacing between the tracks. I was going to go with a wider areas down the centre between both pairs of tracks.
  • I didn't think about the length of the headshunt, so I'm glad you pointed that out. Ill plan for it to be longer. Makes perfect sense!
  • As its my first attempt at a layout, I didn't want to over complicate it with pointwork (therefore motors, point controllers, signals etc), so I was going to treat the station more as a through station such as Haywards Heath or Three Bridges. Also at £40 a point, I was trying to keep the cost down a little. The plan is the bare minimum in point work to allow access to and from all areas, but after what you said, I am thinking of moving some of the crossovers into the station area rather than where they are now? Would that look more realistic?

 

I am more than happy for people to weigh-in with positive criticism, its how we learn and im pretty thick skinned.

 

Thanks!

Link to comment

The corners are very, very tight. Even with 40cm boards, getting 4 tracks around each corner will be very difficult. You certainly won't get away with Peco streamline spacing between each line because you will have stock fouling each other. Peco settrack spacing does not look very good & will look far too spread out on the straights.

When I first saw your dimentions, I read through the text thinking "I hope this plan is for N gauge because it is way too tight for OO".

 

Be very wary of superelevation. I tried it on a club layout once but found that the transition from straight (flat) to curved (canted) needs to be very gradual or else derailments will occur. The problem was as trains went from canted to flat & the track had continued to turn away, leaving the train to derail by carrying on in a straight line. Your tight curves will be a big issue for this.

I know Richard has used this on Everard Jcn, but he has learned a huge amount from his previous Everard Jcn. On this layout, straights transition into curves very gradually which makes superelevation possible.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
5 hours ago, Therealnips said:

 

  • As its my first attempt at a layout, I didn't want to over complicate it with pointwork (therefore motors, point controllers, signals etc), so I was going to treat the station more as a through station such as Haywards Heath or Three Bridges. Also at £40 a point, I was trying to keep the cost down a little. The plan is the bare minimum in point work to allow access to and from all areas, but after what you said, I am thinking of moving some of the crossovers into the station area rather than where they are now? Would that look more realistic?

If you think about when the real railways were built, the points were gathered together in a small area for the railway policeman (now signaller) or 'Bobby' to operate.  When signal boxes came in, the points were operated mechanically - the further the point, the more effort to swing it.

 

There aren't these restrictions on modern signalling but if the points were put there in 18?? then unless there's a good reason, replacement points will go in the same place.

 

So short answer - yes, nearer the station is usual.  It also helps with capacity as a train waiting for a platform can be closer to the station as the signal can be closer (especially in 4 aspect signalling areas).

 

Will

Edited by WillCav
  • Like 1
Link to comment
23 hours ago, Pete the Elaner said:

The corners are very, very tight. Even with 40cm boards, getting 4 tracks around each corner will be very difficult. You certainly won't get away with Peco streamline spacing between each line because you will have stock fouling each other. Peco settrack spacing does not look very good & will look far too spread out on the straights.

When I first saw your dimentions, I read through the text thinking "I hope this plan is for N gauge because it is way too tight for OO".

 

Be very wary of superelevation. I tried it on a club layout once but found that the transition from straight (flat) to curved (canted) needs to be very gradual or else derailments will occur. The problem was as trains went from canted to flat & the track had continued to turn away, leaving the train to derail by carrying on in a straight line. Your tight curves will be a big issue for this.

I know Richard has used this on Everard Jcn, but he has learned a huge amount from his previous Everard Jcn. On this layout, straights transition into curves very gradually which makes superelevation possible.

 

Ok, thanks for the heads-up! How would you go about smoothing out the curves? Would putting a triangle piece of baseboard in the corner help?

 

22 hours ago, WillCav said:

If you think about when the real railways were built, the points were gathered together in a small area for the railway policeman (now signaller) or 'Bobby' to operate.  When signal boxes came in, the points were operated mechanically - the further the point, the more effort to swing it.

 

There aren't these restrictions on modern signalling but if the points were put there in 18?? then unless there's a good reason, replacement points will go in the same place.

 

So short answer - yes, nearer the station is usual.  It also helps with capacity as a train waiting for a platform can be closer to the station as the signal can be closer (especially in 4 aspect signalling areas).

 

Will

 

I will have a look at moving the point work into the station area more, it make total sense really. This is why I wanted a blog some that more experienced people could weigh in!

Link to comment

There is a useful description of curves, easements (or transitions in UK practice) and superelevation in this NMRA publication https://www.nmra.org/sites/default/files/d3b1.pdf - American practice but well described/explained and just as applicable to UK.  It may be that the UK scale associations have similar publications but I'm not familiar with them.  Frank Dyer of "Borchester" fame had some pretty tight radii on his layouts but approached by transition curves (in plan) which assisted good running and went a long way to disguise the tightness of the radii.  Well done for serious forward planning - it'll pay dividends!

Kit PW

  • Like 1
Link to comment

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...