ianly

Thanks for your comments and suggestions, Paul. Much appreciated. The answer to your question regarding the curve radius is below. The software is Railmodeller Pro (Mac only). Unfortunately, freehand or point-to-point curves such as those linking the turnouts in the storage yard are not displayed by the software. The two that you mention in the central lines are between 20 and 21 inch. The rest are approximately 24 inch. As you suggest, I can improve the two that are tight by reducing the length of the straights at each end to one inch, but I can't omit them altogether as the throw bars of adjacent turnouts clash. Inserting these short lengths of track is the only way I could think of to avoid adjacent turnouts clashing. Prior to the forum move and loss of images and photos I was often possible to find helpful examples in other layouts. Now?

Peco Code 75 Streamline

I appreciate the time you've taken to put above together, and yes, I had considered using a gradient to a lower storage level but decided against. That being said, at some point in the future, I may use the 12' by 2' area directly above the storage lines for an end-to-end layout. This would be placed high enough not to foul or prevent easy access to the trains in the storage area below. The two layouts would not be linked. At the risk of going even further off topic; the track plan that I included in my original post is a simplified diagrammatic version of one that had been worked up a few years back in the Layout & Track Design forum. Unfortunately, it along with others were lost when the forum moved. Therefore, I’ve included a copy below with my thinking of how blocks would be configured. The earlier plan is operationally very similar to above and is a loose representation of Castle Cary and the line to Froome at Blatchbridge. The latter only being included to give access/egress to a hidden DMU storage area. More recently, I reworked the plan of the main storage area to provide dedicated bi-directional lines rather than having trains criss-crossing the storage lines. My thinking being that running the DMUs into one of the bi-directional storage lines would simplify operation, and eliminate the need for the turn-out combination shown on right side of the original plan. That may be a simplification too far though.

Thanks for the information regarding the inclusion of feedbacks for the turnouts associated with the storage lanes. All turnouts will have their own pair of feeds from the track bus in any case. However, I'm not clear on whether each needs to have its own independent detector or that they can be grouped with a single detector as denoted in attached diagram of the turnout fan. That is, each of the turnouts in the blue group can share a single detector, etc.

I’m in the process of constructing a model railway in a dedicated 12’ by 10’ room. Locos and rolling stock are a mix of passenger and freight that has recently or currently runs on UK mainline and branch lines. The track plan, albeit compressed, is based on a real location, and I would prefer not to alter it too much. My intention is that the layout be computer controlled with iTrain being the software that I’m considering at present. The command station is a Z21 (Black), turnouts are DCCconcepts IP digital with Yamorc (current sensing) occupancy detection. I hope to commence track laying shortly, but before doing so, would like to be sure that I’m heading in the right direction when it comes to splitting the layout into blocks. To this end, I’ve attached a track plan showing my current thinking. The track plan has been annotated to show train directions, storage area, station area, etc. I’ve also coloured the tracks to represent the blocks. Not ever having done anything like this before, it’s my best guess based on the information I’ve gathered here in the forum and YouTube. The ‘Hidden Storage’ area is split into 3 groups of 4 tracks, with the inner 4 holding trains going anti-clockwise, the middle 4 holding bi-directional trains, and the outer 4 tracks holding trains going clockwise. All of the tracks in this area can hold my longest trains. Likewise, all of the tracks coloured red, green, purple, yellow, orange and brown are long enough to hold the trains that I intend to run on them. The pink coloured track is borderline. Unfortunately, the blue coloured tracks are not long enough to hold my longest trains. None of the turnouts or short lengths of track between them are included in blocks. Operationally, some passenger trains will stop at the mainline station platforms while others and freight trains will pass through. Shorter trains (2 car DMUs) can only exit the branch line using the turnouts on the right side of the track plan. However, trains can enter the branch line using the turnouts on either the left or right side of the track plan. Now, a few questions. 1. Is what I’ve drawn workable or what changes to the block arrangements would be needed to make it so? 2. Can the issues that make the plan unworkable be solved in software rather than altering the block arrangements? 3. Would it be beneficial to provide 2 sensors for each of the storage and station blocks?

Interesting idea and thanks for suggesting. Unfortunately, it seems to loose one loop in clockwise direction and two in anticlockwise. It also shortens two loops in clockwise direction. Nevertheless, a slightly different approach gets me to a similar place on right side without loosing or significantly shortening any loops. The left side looks to be more difficult, and since bi-directional running is a bonus rather than a necessity I think I may leave it as is, especially as there are now 41 turnouts shown on the plan. My current plan is to use DCCconcepts Cobalt-IP slow digital point motors, which translates to approximately £750.

Thanks, Mike and Zomboid, both look like excellent suggestions. Hopefully, below plan is the correct interpretation. I've also added the crossover that JDW suggested.

Thanks for the suggestion JDW. Placing a crossover between the up/down lanes is relatively easy. While it's only two roads theres enough for up to four DMUs. The other dedicated DMU storage also helps.

Again, thanks for feedback. Hopefully, I haven't misunderstood same. The main changes from last nights plan are: Increased spacing between roads in storage area to 48mm and shortened four roads in each direction by 100mm. Doing so means that only one road in anti-clockwise group has a curve radius less than 610mm between the last curved turnout and straight. Most are greater than 610mm. Radius of curves at start and end of storage area are 610mm or greater. The right hand crossover has been pulled fully into the scenic area to create space for a left hand turnout giving access to two hidden DMU storage roads. My logic here being that some DMUs are going to / coming from a different location than the others trains. It also avoids stacking DMUs in one storage road. For now, the plan shows the turnout half in/out of storage area but this may change. The crossover will be disguised as described by Simon (Flying Pig). The branch line in front of the hidden storage area is scenic up to the red line to left of three-way turnout. I've added appropriate text and a red line to indicate same. Note that the tightest curve radius in scenic area is 762mm, but most are much greater than this.

I didn't realise how tight the curves leading on to the curved turnouts had become. However, having just checked I see that the curve on the outer track has 19 inch radius and on inner track it's 17 inch. If possible, some guidance on a realistic minimum radius into a streamline curved turnout would be helpful as I suspect a couple of others in storage yards might also be a bit tight Apologies, I misread your post.

Thanks for the great feedback. How to deal with the crossovers facilitating bi-directional train movement from the storage roads has been exercising me since I first added them to the plan a week or so back. I even mentioned that the road bridges and crossovers would need to be repositioned/realigned when I described yesterdays plan. So, it no surprise that they are identified as needing further work. I've not found a way to move the left side bi-directional crossovers off scene, at least not without reducing the length of the storage roads. Therefore, I'm satisfied that the location of cross-overs on left side remains as previously shown. On the right side, I've made a few tweaks that have allowed me to move the crossover slightly closer to the curved turnouts in the storage area. Additionally, the road over-bridge has been replaced with a line to represent a scenic break that effectively hides the majority of the crossover. I've also moved the bridge over the road/river to create more space between it and the crossover. Unfortunately, I'm struggling a bit to visualise the form that the scenic break will take. A tunnel portal at end of a short cutting is one thought. If anyone can point me to possible examples that would be appreciated. BTW, I haven't ignored Zomboid's suggestion of dead end sidings for storing the DMUs originating from the branch line. It's just that I think adding the turnout to facilitate same would mean that the cross-overs would need to move even further from the storage roads. Anyway, I'm fairly confident that I can accommodate up to three 2-car DMU's in any of the storage roads. Again, thanks for all your comments and suggestions.

Thanks all, for your thoughts and suggestions, especially those relating to the option with station placed across top of plan. The consensus seems to be that the plan that placed the station on the left was better, and I tend to agree. My preference is for scheduling/watching the trains go by rather than shunting, and this had a bearing on the type of station best suited to this type of operation. As I mentioned a week or so back, the plan is a 'very' loose representation 'Castle Cary'. As a junction station, I think it provides scope for some interesting train movements, and with the FGW/GWR stock I already have should allow for an interesting variety of liveries stoping and passing through. I've also found a few relatively recent videos on Youtube that show 'Arriva Cross Country' diverts. The diverts don't appear to be too common, but that doesn't prevent me from stretching reality a little. There isn't a huge amount of freight going through the real location. For example, ballast trains between Westbury and Fairfield can be seen on at least one occasion most days of the week (Realtime Trains shows at least one each day this week). Likewise, Network Rail Engineering trains are not uncommon. Still with freight, I've noted that intermodal container trains don't appear to use this line. I suspect that this may well be where I apply rule 1. The main changes from my previous plan with station on left side are: The redundant sidings have been reworked. At this point, I'm not sure how or even if I'll put them to use. However, one idea being a DMU siding similar to Westbury. The hidden DMU sidings on branch line at bottom right have also been reworked and extended. I also added another siding. While I haven't shown any changes to the over bridges, I expect they'll need to be repositioned/realigned to hide the crossings. If it doesn't work out as I hope or I get bored, I'll rip it up and start again.

I spent time yesterday evening adjusting the plan in line with Chimer's suggestion of placing the station across the top section of the plan. Doing so allowed me to moved the old goods yards siding on west side of station more into view. However, I've dropped the the siding and runaround loop on east side for time being. Likewise the bridge over river or road on far right of plan. The main line and branch lines sections of the station are based on a 100 inch radius with the curves on either side being 36 inch radius. The old goods yard siding has a curve of approx 22 inch radius. Is this plan worth further attention or should I continue with the last?

In reality, the branch line and the redundant siding are relatively straight and parallel to each other. Ideally, I would like to achieve something similar or at least not as contrived as I've shown in attached plan. Having the FY crossovers off scene would be great. Sadly, I just couldn't get it to work. I suspect trying to maintain the length of the FY straights was/is what limits scope for moving the crossovers off scene. If I shortened the straights anymore, then some trains will be partially parked on a curve, which may result in having to increase space between roads. I've moved the siding turnout up a bit using curved point and moved it another inch or so from the wall. However, doing so has tightened the platform curve slightly, and not sure that I like how it has turned out. I know I'm under using the NW corner but other for some buildings and car park not seeing how else to use it. Yes, way too close. I'll need to clean my spectacles ;-) I've moved it further from the wall and also shortened to something more realistic. Thanks for the Little Muddle tip, which certainly helps create the illusion of more space beyond the bridge. I'll definitely keep it in mind. Thanks, gain for your comments and suggestions.

Bryant, Thanks for your time and effort drafting above. My initial reaction was that 9 roads isn't enough, but then realised that you were including the curve within the overall length. Your suggestion re full length trains probably wouldn't work for me as the overall size of my proposed layout is such that I don't think full length trains would look particularly convincing. Fortunately, GWR were testing the shorter HSTs as far back as April/May 2018, which is a good enough excuse for me to run the 2+4 sets. The longer roads (>11ft) you've shown would allow for storing two 2+4 HSTs or an 2+4 HST and a 5 car 800 IET. However, only one of these longer roads is bidirectional. I could use one of the other to store three or four car DMUs, but this this still leaves one. I hate giving up so easily on your idea though. Ian