Main line through station in N

[Chimer]

Your latest plan does reflect just about exactly what I was thinking.  I also thought about having 4 FYs, but decided there was more room for the junction and diamond top left than top, bottom or middle right.

 

Chris

[Chimer]

For 4 separate FY's, you might try this (ignore the dimensions, I've used 00 Streamline 'cos I'm set up for that).  For speed, I've omitted the ladders at the outer ends but you should get the idea ........

 

 

Positioning the diamond between the two sets of yards might make crashes less likely than anywhere else, I think.

 

Cheers

 

Chris

[jamespetts]

Thank you for your suggestion, Chris - that is a most interesting idea, which will require quite a few hours to draw out to see whether it would fit, I think. I will have to think about that. Has anyone here actually had a layout laid out like that? If so, was it workable?

 

In the meantime, some consideration needs to be given to which of the two layout concepts to use: the four track version ("C") or the two track version ("B"). I should be grateful for people's views of the relative merits in terms of operating practicality of each, especially given the earlier comments about trains being backed up with the no. 17 version of the original concept (two tracks with five platforms).

 

Here is, for reference, the latest (no. 19) version of the "B" concept, changes from last time being the longer sidings on the up side of the layout (left hand side of the diagram):

 

[jamespetts]

I have not yet attempted the plan for the cross in the centre fiddle yard, but I have updated the four track version of the plan somewhat, as shown here:

 

 

I have been working on a small test layout (in N gauge) in my conservatory whilst waiting for the shed to be built so that I can test various automation hardware/software before finalising the plan for the full sized layout and deciding whether to use MERG hardware (which can only work with JMRI software) or using accessory decoder hardware.

 

Here is the progress so far:

 

[jamespetts]

Following discussion here regarding different types of track, I have produced a version of the design with British Finescale fiNetraX geometary in the scenic areas to see how this would fit.

 

 

This seems to work quite well, with the ability to have much larger radius points and more closely spaced tracks on the main lines. The use of larger radius points on the right hand (down) side of the station does mean reducing the length of the carriage sidings somewhat, but they are still long enough to accommodate two 9 carriage trains with locomotives at one end and two shorter trains.

[jamespetts]

I have been spending some time lately investigating automation software, and reached the provisional conclusion that Triancontroller Gold is likely to be the most suitable system, JMRI lacking the timetabling features necessary for robust operation (and scripting an entire timetabling function, whilst possible, being impractical).

Looking into Traincontroller in more detail and what people have been able to achieve with it, it seems that it is quite possible to change locomotives in the fiddle yards. Being able to do this would allow me to alter the design to eliminate the reversing loops. This, in turn, allows for a larger fiddle yard with fewer conflicting movements and more storage space.

For comparison, here is a slightly revised version of the latest version with reversing loops, with the road now correctly scaled:



whereas here is the version with the reversing loops removed and the enlarged fiddle yard:



The design with reversing loops had a total of 18 long fiddle yard storage roads plus 9 short dedicated DMU storage roads. The new design has 27 long fiddle yard storage roads, 13 short dedicated DMU storage roads, 16 dedicated extra short locomotive roads, and one road that can be used either for DMUs or locomotives. This should enable more varied running, which should be most interesting.

The main and relief lines on the quad track side now have a separate set of storage roads to each other (although 5 long storage roads, those shown in bright green on the left hand side, are shared), reducing conflicting movements, and through running in both directions and from both main and relief lines remains possible for fully circular operation (as in running-in, testing, etc.). Freight trains with open wagons (i.e., coal and aggregates trains) have paths to allow them to circle in only one direction to permit having an identical set of empty and full wagons of each type.

As a result of the removal of the reversing loops, the scenic area has been able to be extended slightly at the ends, allowing for slightly longer carriage sidings at both sides of the layout and a few centimetres more of scenic running.

The large space at the back that would have had town scenery has been reduced, but this is not a problem, as I was unsure how to fill this, and I can now simply use much low relief scenery: there is still room for the multi-storey car park that I am keen on having.

I should be interested in anyone's views on this revised version, especially as to whether there are any operating issues that are apparent to anyone that I may not have spotted.

In relation to the track situation, I note with interest that British Finescale is planning to release by the end of the year flatbottom turnouts in code 40 whose sleepers do not have a distinctive concrete profile, so can be painted to give the appearance of wood, as well as releasing in the quite near future concrete sleepered plain flexible track. Subject to testing the turnouts for ease of construction, this is looking the most promising at present for the track to use in the scenic area.

 

One thing that I do note is that this plan is becoming somewhat more complex than the OO gauge layout that I am also planning to build, and now also relying on a type of track that will not be available until later this year (those who have read the threads in detail may recall that one of the reasons for pursuing this layout first was that the other one relied on Peco Bullhead slips and crossings which are not currently available, but which are due either later this year or early next year). I do wonder which it would ultimately be better to start with, although that question will remain moot until my shed is ready (it is still awaiting air conditioning, decorating, racking and flooring before I can start even with baseboards).

Edited August 19, 2018 by jamespetts

[GWRPhil]

Was wondering if there’s been ny updates to the layout plan/layout recently?

[jamespetts]

Hello - yes, there have been some minor changes: see below:

 

 

Changes since then include:

 

• more carriage sidings (to accommodate the necessary number of trains for the morning peak up loco hauled services, of which there are many before the first down trains);
• slightly revised baseboard dimensions at the front to take into account concomitant changes in the upper baseboards for the OO gauge layout with which this layout shares a space;
• marking of the positions for uncouplers;
• some fiddle yard enhancements based on the intented operating methods;
• an improved layout for the locomotive fuelling/stabling area;
• connecting the down branch line to the main fiddle yards to allow longer freight trains to be sent to the branch line (the dedicated branch fiddle yard will still be used by the shuttle DMU service);
• the up DMU sidings have been reconfigured to make the curves smoother; and
• an additional crossover on the up relief lines to allow trains coming from the up relief to use either platform 4 or 5.

Most of my railway modelling time recently has been spent trying to organise the baseboard building and associated shed works, but hopefully I should be able to start on this eventually (although I am still waiting for the flat bottom turnouts from British Finescale to be produced).