Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

ianly's Achievements



  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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.
  6. 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.
  7. 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.
  8. 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?
  9. 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.
  10. 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
  11. Chris, I'm not sure I understand exactly where you refer to re the abandoned goods yard. I've already shown the existing siding and head shunt between end of storage loops and station. I've seen videos were Network Rail have a Windhoff MPV parked up there. I know there is an 'abandoned' siding with runaround loop leading off the branch that then runs parallel with main lines for around 250 metres. I believe that's what Phil mentioned in one of his posts. These are quite visible on Google Maps, albeit quite overgrown as you move east from the branch to mainline crossover. As a little cameo scene, I toyed with the idea of parking up an a few Turbot ballast wagons with ballast heap alongside but haven't pursued it any further. BTW, if you have a look at Castle Cary on Raildar you'll see what I'm referring to above http://raildar.co.uk/map/CLC Thanks, again for you comments.
  12. Again, thanks for all the feedback and suggestions, they’re much appreciated. I think below plan addresses the main issue identified with the one I uploaded on 22 July. The storage loops have been shortened slightly, although the outermost remains longer than the others in order that it can accommodate my longest rain on straight section of track. Most, if not all, are at least 4thradius. Crossovers to facilitate bi-directional train movement have been incorporated at either end of the storage loops. That being said, I’m a tad concerned that I may have over complicated things by including them on station side of plan. I’ll hide both sets as best I can with an overbridge or tunnel, although suspending reality for a second or so might also be required. The crossing and left turnout that provided branch line to outer main line has been replaced as per The Station Masters suggestion. Hopefully, I’ve not misunderstood. The majority of main-line station platform is curved at 60-inch radius. The branch line platform is slightly tighter but will only be used for 2-car DMUs. Thanks Ian
  13. Thanks for taking the time draw this up, Chris. While it provides bidirectional access I think it's a tad complicated (for me anyway) compared to Harlequin's suggestion of crossovers where the storage loops link to the main lines. Yes, they take up a little additional space, but with a bit of work to the storage loops (again suggested by Harlequin) I've managed to fit them in but may reduce to one set. I had to reduce the length of the storage loops (except for the outermost) to 74 inches (1880mm), which has also enabled me to ease the overly tighter curves into/out of the storage area. The tightest is now just slightly less than 4th radius. Also, keeping the length of the straight section of the storage loops to not less than 74 inches means that I can store all but one train in the straight section of 11 loops. The remaining loop is also long enough to store my longest train on a straight section. Centre to centre, the straight sections of track in the storage area are spaced at a fraction under 44mm. Next task is easing the station curve. I suspect this will prove more difficult than the storage loops. Ian
  14. My arrangement is 12' x 4' but if it can be reduced to 12' x 3' that would be ideal. Looking forward to what you come up with.
  15. Thanks, all for the excellent feedback. Also, apologies for not being as clear as I should have been regarding stock that I've already acquired. I've addressed this and some of the other comments below. In terms of bi-directional trains, I have four 2+4 HSS sets, a 2+3 800 IET, three 2-car DMUs and one 1-car DMU. Obviously, the HSTs aren't prototypical with Castle Cary but they were/are further west. In this regard, I think I'll apply Rule 1. As for the HST Power cars, they're all GWR green, albeit with different names, numbers, etc. On the other hand, the coaches can be any mix of GWR green or FGW neon blue that I choose. So, in terms of livery I can run four different HSTs, and all would prototypical. The same applies to the four DMUs. As such, I don't need to run them in reverse, but it does seems like an idea worth investigating. I had used the slip to save space. However, the suggestion to change same to trailing crossover on main lines and link to the branch is one I will adopt. Each straight section in storage loops is 80 inches or 2032 mm. My longest train is 78 inches or 1980 mm but most are less. Therefore, I could park the longest train part way round a bend and make the loops shorter. However, when originally drafting the plan I found that shorter loops made it more difficult to align the curved turnouts. Reducing to five lanes in each direction works much easier but that reduces the variation that another two two trains would give. I'll need to give this a bit more thought before doing anything so rash. Unfortunately, Chimer's suggested method of shortening the storage loops won't work. First, I've planned for twelve loops to maximise the stock on the layout, and secondly, the schematic is 1300mm long excluding the curves onto the loops. Unless I'm missing something, this approach would take up a lot more space than I have available. The curved station is something that I'd like fix. As for Chimers suggestion, I've been there on page one of this thread, albeit with four lines, and don't like it. Fortunately, there are other options (e.g Burngullow Lane) https://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/137733-burngullow-lane/ Again, thanks for your comments. Ian
  • Create New...