Jump to content

David04

Members
  • Posts

    10
  • Joined

  • Last visited

David04's Achievements

3

Reputation

  1. I’ve just been looking at the photographs in the September ‘19 Model Rail (I bought it as a back issue) and was compelled to log on and congratulate you. What a wonderful layout! I find it hard to get my head around it being N gauge because I’d swear it was OO.
  2. Thanks aac. Here's the latest version with the spur moved as you suggested. I've also sorted the easements. The shorter of the two sidings on the middle baseboard (what was once the coal siding) is now the loco spur. The longer siding is a headshunt for the parcels depot. I'm not quite there yet; the sidings look a bit "goofy". I'm also not convinced that I need both as the station pilot can't be in both places at once. I decided not to open up the space in front of the traverser as I want the station to feel quite cramped and claustrophobic. Again, this is not something I've yet achieved to my satisfaction.
  3. I thought I'd give woodenhead's suggestion a go: I'm not convinced for two (somewhat touchy-feely reasons) reasons: 1) Giving the loco spur direct access to all four platforms somehow makes the layout feel less interesting operationally. Would be more fun perhaps if the pilot had to work at it a bit more? 2) Laying things out this way seems to put an awful lot of traffic on the approach and leaves the departure track looking somewhat superfluous. In fact I thought for a moment that I'd somehow managed to break Minories and had to go back and check CJF's original to make sure my plan still qualified. Despite my reservations, I thought I'd post the new design here in case someone found it interesting.
  4. Now you mention it, the flipped version reverses the direction of the two crossovers with respect to "up" and "down." That might cause problems with simultaneous arrivals/departures I guess although I don't myself see the new design as any more restrictive, just differently restrictive. If there's something I'm not seeing, I could always rotate the layout instead of flipping it. There's no real need for a seven track traverser but if I figured that if I was going to dedicate one of the boards to a traverser, I figured I might as well go all in. The original design of four tracks was chosen only because that was all I could manage without compromising the length of the tracks with more turnouts. Neither four nor seven were selected according to need as I don't yet have a working timetable; something I fear I may regret if I commit to a design before deciding on one. There's no real reason for the spur being shaped as it is other than Minories tradition. Either of your suggestions would work. I just need to choose one that I like the aesthetics of.
  5. Thanks for your comments everyone. I've been mulling them over and I've not made a lot of progress to be honest but we're getting there. Here's where I am: Collectively, you've convinced me to dump cassettes which is good because I didn't want to go that way anyway. Initially, I didn't like the idea of flipping the layout; I had preconceived ideas about front and back and couldn't grok the layout reversed but once I tried it, I liked it so here we are. Forcing me to consider issues of front and back was also useful because the initial design was clearly intended for exhibition which is not my intention so now I have a design where the viewer and operator stand on the same side. I do have a few issues with the design as it stands. For one thing, the loco spur now sits uncomfortably close to the baseboard edge and all of my transition curves are alarmingly tight (at the ends, they're as tight as eight inch radius) so that needs working on. The bigger issue is that I feel I've drifted rather far from my original goal, that of building a starter layout on which to learn. A twelve foot layout with a seven track traverser does seem a little over the top for someone whose sum total of model railway resources is a two car DMU, an entry level DCC controller and an oval of Hornby track.
  6. So as I said before, I wasn't happy with either of my plans. They felt rigid and not at all prototypical so I've reverted to a more conventional Minories design which feels much better in both respects. Again, I have two versions: one with a conventional fiddle yard and one with a traverser. Fiddle yard: Traverser: Both designs will incorporate an overbridge to disguise the entry to the storage tracks. In order to keep all but one of the turnouts on one board and keep the storage tracks to a useful length, the fiddle yard version uses small radius points. However, this version has the advantage that I can conceal the fiddle yard underneath an industry and, should I wish, extend the small goods yard (currently no more than a row of coal staithes) into the space in front of it. The downside is that, as currently drawn, each of the main lines only has access to half of the storage tracks and to "fix" that would reduce the length of the storage tracks to the point that they were too short. The traverser version has ample storage but restricts the scenic area to the first two boards but does also have the advantage that I've been able to use medium radius points. This has had the effect or reducing platforms three and four in length but not by so much that it matters. Perversely, platforms one and two have grown by a similar amount. I think, having just typed all that, that the best of both worlds might be to use train-length cassettes. I'd be grateful to hear any comments you might have about any aspects of the design.
  7. I'm planning a first layout and would appreciate any guidance you can offer. The purpose of the layout is to give me something to learn on, something to have trains running on as soon as possible, something to prove to myself that I'm going to stick with the hobby, and something to do while I build up my stock collection for something larger. I've flip-flopped through many prototypes and scales (the choice available when one is starting out seems near infinite) but the one that's drawn me back time and time again has been diesels and DMUs in the early 1960s, somewhere in the Midlands. My chosen scale is OO. I had originally planned on TOPS-era BR Blue, the trains of my childhood, but there's something about BR Green diesels pulling rakes of maroon coaches that I find irresistible. What's more, my chosen era allows me to purchase the occasional steam or pre-TOPS BR Blue loco should I wish. I've decided that my first layout will be a Minories-like passenger terminus served by DMUs, some parcel traffic, and eventually, loco hauled passenger services. Control of the locos will be DCC and I intend to add sound as funds allow. Point motors will be Tortoise and be controlled by CBUS, as will the signals. Dictated by the size of panels available in my local hardware store, the layout will be 40cm deep, and some multiple of 40cm long. Here's what I've come up with so far: This is two versions of the same layout stacked one on top of the other while I try out ideas. The second version adds a departure track to Platform 1 to avoid the reverse curve. All trackwork is Peco code 75. All points are medium radius. The grid is 40cm squares. The layout will extend further to the left and terminate in a fiddle yard. I've rotated each plan in an effort to avoid having all the tracks running parallel to the board edges but both designs feel rigid and not particularly prototypical. I also need to find space for the station pilot. In the first version of the plan, I'd probably replace the curve underneath the single slip with a left turnout and have it live on a short siding beneath the double slip. In the second version, it's not so obvious.
  8. I would, grudgingly, take them off your hands As for doing a rerun not being cricket, I doubt any of the 'users' would feel too aggrieved. The 'investors' wouldn't be too happy but I wouldn't worry about them. The hobby would be better off without them.
  9. Curious. For some reason I can't edit my top post. I've been continuing my research this evening and it seems that the requirement to include barrier wagons in flask trains was phased out in the mid 90's which would explain their absence from the prototypes I've been studying. That'll save me some money Edit: You beat me to it Dungrange Oh, and I've worked out how to edit my posts too
  10. Hi All, I'm just starting out. I've read plenty of railway modelling books over the years, been to a few exhibitions and built a few baseboards but have never got any further than that. However, the bug has bitten and I'm keen to finally start playing with trains. I've cast around for ideas, flirted with various prototypes and scales but, inspired by some photographs of real trains, I've settled on nuclear flask movements in the DRS era in OO. Not sure exactly what year but likely to be quite recent. I have no plans for a layout just yet as starting from scratch in this hobby can be an expensive game. For now, I'm going to concentrate on building up a collection of rolling stock: a 37, a brace of 20s, a couple of FNAs, some nuclear escort coaches and maybe some RNA barrier wagons although those don't seem so common judging by the photos I've seen so far. So there you have it. Hopefully you'll see some more interesting posts from me soon. David.
×
×
  • Create New...