Jump to content
 

First ever layout


AndyMac7
 Share

Recommended Posts

Hi all,

Following a visit to model rail Scotland this year my son and I are in the middle of planning our first ever layout. We’re lucky enough to have a good size double garage joined to the house that only stores garden equipment for most of the year and it’ll be the home for our layout. 

So far I’ve built four 4ft x 2ft boards and we’re now looking at what to put on them. We’d like to run passenger and freight services with a TMD and some sidings in the mix. I’m tilting towards realism and my wee one towards the play aspects. One thing I don't want to do is fill every spare inch with track.

 

I'm been playing around with various ideas in AnyRail and come up with a 14ft long L shaped layout that I think might work.  We do have enough room to eventually make this into a continuous run but we'll start with this kind of size while I convince the wife to let us build bigger.


Given that we're complete novices at this I wondered if anyone had any feedback on the attached track plan? I'm wondering if the running lines are maybe too far apart and the transfer between them in the middle of the layout unrealistic. 

 

Any opinions would be gratefully received.

 

Thanks,

Andy
 

Capture.PNG

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

Hi Andy, and welcome.  I think we'd need a few more details to be able to help fully, mainly the scale (presumably OO) and era/type of trains you're looking at using.  I can see where you're going with this, but suggest it would need a few changes if you want realism as well as play value.  I'll assume modern image (diesel locos/multiple units) as you describe the depot as a TMD, and that trains will arrive from the left past the TMD, at least until SWMBO agrees to an extension!  With left hand running, trains can only enter platforms 2 and 3, an arriving train has no way to get across to platform 1.  Much older stations might have had separate arrival and departure platforms, with stock shunted from one to the other, but these days simplicity and flexibility are key.  A pair of crossovers replacing the unusually long one you have would allow this.  You might wish to reconsider the sharp reverse curves approaching the station too, as these can look awkward especially with long modern vehicles, and sometimes cause issues with couplings.  The platforms look very short, platform 3 will barely fit a 2-coach DMU such as a Hornby class 156 or Bachmann class 158.  I'd move the set of points to where the S-curve is, and have one line running straight into platform 3, and the other curving into platform 2.  That would give a minimum of 4 feet, and up to 5 feet, of platform, enough for a loco and 3, possibly 4 coaches.

 

If you are using locos and coaches rather than DMUs, then you will also need to be able to swap ends with the loco after arrival, which would need a crossover in the station between platforms 1 and 2 too to release the loco and allow it to run around its train.  The siding that kicks back off the TMD at the bottom looks awkward to use, I'd be tempted to re-connect it to the line next to it to give a loop, possibly with a fuelling facility to allow locos to be fuelled whilst others can still enter/leave the shed.

 

Unfortunately I don't have any software to re-draw the plan for you, I hope that's clear-ish.  I'm sure someone else will be along with more ideas, I'll leave it there for now before it starts to sound too much.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

You definitely need a continuous run for small people, ideally double track so you can have an occasional race.  Its fun, 

As for the track plan the platforms look a bit short and is neither modern nor traditional.  Parallel tracks are the norm, and for post 1970s the double track would most likely come down to single before spreading out to the platforms.

Obviously some type of run round is needed for goods and for passengers where loco hauled, If sleepers are operated you need a run round even for 2010s.

Pre 1970 you need lots of crossovers and run round facilities in the platforms.  Have a look at some prototype track plans,Kyle of Lochalsh or Fort William should give some ideas. Inverness is good if you have two houses to fill with track. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Many thanks for the very helpful replies and for the warm welcome.

 

I can't believe that I forgot to say it was OO gauge and modern image (with the exception of visits by Edward, Thomas & James). 

 

JDW you've touched on every point I wasn't very sure about so I've made some alterations this morning and come up with the attached. I've extended the platforms and smoothed out a lot of the curves as well as adding a run around into the sidings at the bottom right and taking the excellent idea of a fuel point near the TMD. I'm not too worried about run arounds in the station, I've got enough left over wood to make a small fiddle yard on the right hand side where I can do any required track switching. 

 

I'm a lot happier with the new results so thank you so much for the comments.

 

Thanks,

Andy

Capture.PNG

Edited by AndyMac7
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

Yeah, that's pretty much what I had in mind. It flows much better. 

 

My instinct is that even with an extra bit of fiddle yard on the right, having moves go off scene is less interesting than running around in the station but that's my preference and won't neccesarily be right for you. (My own layout has no run round facility in the terminus at all, but I rarely run loco hauled stock).

 

The diamond shaped area between the two tracks running to the yard seemed odd at first but makes me think of an area where there used to be something else there but track rationalisation etc has just left the two lines either side with waste ground in between.  The positioning of the crossovers as you have them allows a train to arrive into the yard via the right hand spur, but also a passenger train can cross to platform 1 while a freight departs via the left hand spur.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I’ve been playing around with how to make the diamond area seen a little more natural and flow slightly better but I’m not having much luck. 

 

I’ll take to google maps and start looking at some real world locations for inspiration. 

 

I like the idea of something that’s been removed though. Maybe a derelict passenger or mail platform that’s been lost over the years or an old factory. 

 

Im loving the endless possibilities that modelling brings. 

 

Andy

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

I know what you mean, I was struggling to think of an alternative arrangement for those two tracks but couldn't really come up with one.  There's not enough room for any kind of factory or platform I don't think, I'd maybe go for something like a disused signalbox (I seem to remember there's a ready to use one available, either from Bachmann or Hornby?) and some waste ground as if there had been sidings there, or even some relic from the steam era, the remains of the base of a water tower or something.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

Hi Andy,

 

The radii on your curves are very tight. If you opened them out the layout would look more realistic. The first facing crossover could start in the curve so you wouldn't be losing so much space by doing that.

 

If you want realism I suggest abandoning the diamond and combining the two loops along the bottom into one longer, more useful one.

 

Finally, think about using slips to combine and contract some of the pointwork.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks very much for the reply Phil.

 

I'm going to play around with the curves tonight to see if I can open them out. When it comes to the diamond would you recommend removing one of the slips in? Probably the second one to allow lengthier trains to enter via the first.

 

Thanks,

Andy

Link to post
Share on other sites

I like the second plan a lot more. The crossover & approach to platform 2 looked wobbly before. They look a lot better smoothed out.

I can see the tracks are separated slightly through the platform. I think this looks a little strange so I would either bring them closer or separate them further to depict it as though there was an avoiding line there which has now been removed. Chelmsford is such an example.

 

I can see you have mentioned run-rounds. BR stopped using these many years ago in favour of release locos. Not only do run round loops need a lot of clearance from the end of the platform, but having a release loco ready allows a faster turn-around, so that takes the train on its return leg then the original loco goes off to be prepared ready to take the next inbound service out.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The second is better - but not perfect.  The 

 

I'd recommend maximising the curve into the station (you should be able to get about a 4' radius with flexitrack), and transitioning the end of it.  I'd also recommend using a Minories-type approach to give you three platforms, and then fill in the gaps with whatever fits.  But you need to get this bit right first, 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

4ft might be asking a bit much - especially when you factor in the entry to the fiddle yard, which ideally shouldn't be against the back wall.

 

IMHO you can't do a Minories variant in this case because the running lines don't (naturally) turn with the outbound line closest to the terminal platform sidings.

 

As far as flow is concerned I think some elements could be better ordered. For instance, from the left, the current order is TMD turnout 1, facing crossover, trailing crossover, TMD turnout 2.

But operations would be smoother if the order were, Facing crossover, TMD 1, TMD 2 (not really needed!), trailing crossover. The facing crossover is then available for all inbound traffic to get directly where it needs and the trailing crossover is only needed for exit from platforms 2 and 3.

 

Using slips would avoid some wiggles but maybe the wiggles are part of the character???

1416977236_Andy1.png.c97986a4d348ef13530b76c840fe0c9f.png

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks very much for all of the comments folks they are much appreciated. I've been playing about with the curves and consolidating some of the turnouts into slips and had come up with something close to what Harlequin was suggesting but I think yours is slightly better than my effort.

 

The current version is attached with curves on a 28" radius, I'm going to have a play with the 36" and see how it looks but I like the consolidation of the turnouts. I might still extend the siding at the bottom of the layout beside the TMD and I'm wondering about a small siding either north of the TMD or off the off the spur into the bottom area.

 

Thanks again.

 

Andy

Capture.PNG

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

One thing I'm wondering about would be to make the spur a bit longer and at less of an angle, so it joins the yard/TMD at the opposite side of the set of points for the loop, then have the extra TMD siding coming off the left hand end of the loop (ie two right hand points one after the other) which then gives you the ability to move locos around the depot without interfering with the yard, for example from the shed to the new extra siding.

 

I'm also thinking that instead of a double slip, a single slip to allow departures from platform 2 plus a set of points just before it to allow trains arriving to access platform three might be better, as it would allow a simultaneous arrival into 3 and departure from 2 (more play value!).  It would also give a smoother approach rather than the slight right-left-right at the minute.

 

A final thought, might it be better to have the TMD at a slight angle, rather than everything square on to the baseboard edge, which would get rid of the long straight line across the bottom, and possibly help blend in to the curve of the rest of the track better.  I'm thinking something like close the loop with a left hand point, and the upper track running straight from the right hand point leading in to it.  Depending how you position the shed it could also help disguise the corner of the backscene, as well as getting rid of the sometimes awkward to fill triangular area between the depot and running lines.

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

For what it's worth, I would ditch the loop in the TMD and extend the one in the sidings to allow a decent length modern freight to run round.  I'd also be looking to use plain points rather than slips as they are more typical of modern formations.

 

You might get a better flow of the main line by moving the station towards the back of the board and starting the curve at a larger radius, tightening as you move towards the fiddle yard.  You can incorporate crossovers into gentle curves:

 

post-6813-0-02610100-1321044854.gif

 

On another note, your plan reminds me of a sketch I made of Kings Lynn, based on the 1988 Quail map:

 

post-6813-0-86352200-1386421970.gif

  • Like 2
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

More excellent ideas. I’ll definitely try to angle the TMD slightly to take away some of dead space and add the extra siding. 

 

JDW I’m afraid the platform 2/3 slip suggestion has gone way over the top of my head, I’m still trying to get to grips with all the correct terminology so my apologies. Do you mean something like a Y slip going into 2/3 and just before that on the platform side a cross from 2 onto the departure line? Or leave the existing X slip in place?

 

Cheers,

Andy

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

Yeah sorry Andy, I didn't think I was explaining that well, I tried to keep it as simple as I could!  I've done a very rudimentary addition to your plan: 1529845775_NewPlan1.PNG.476737b3b51945b400c51747fb776e0e.PNG

 

Basically instead of a double slip, the suggestion is a single slip to allow trains from platform 2 or 3 to get on to the outbound line, but trains entering platform 3 do so via the points and the very neat grey line I've drawn on your plan!  That would be a single slip rather than double, which would be less complicated, and allow a departure from 2 at the same time as an arrival into 3.  

 

If it helps:

 

Diamond crossing:

an X shape, where trains can only follow the straight lines.

 

Single slip:

an X shape, trains can follow each of the straight routes and the curved route top left to bottom left.

 

Double slip:

an X shape, trains can follow each of the straight lines, and both curved routes top left to bottom left / top right to bottom right.

  • Like 1
  • Funny 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah that makes sense, thanks for cleaning that up and for the explanation on slips. I can see how they would massively save on space v's the equivalent set of several points.

 

I've been playing around a little with the bottom portion tonight and have moved the TMD slightly. Not sure what I think yet but we'll see with fresh eyes tomorrow.

 

I'll need to draw a line under this soon otherwise I'll keep planning and tinkering and never actually build anything.

 

Capture.PNG

Edited by AndyMac7
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

Whoa! I think there’s a bit more planning to do yet! ;)

 

You need to think about how your fiddle yard  is going to work - ideally draw it too. It might affect the rest of the layout, especially if you have to move the curves.

 

BTW: the curves are not equally spaced but I guess that’s the ugly software’s fault...

 

The design is in danger of filling the space with railway - a classic first timer mistake. This is another reason to do a bit more planning before you start work. Plan where scenery will go, not just railway. It would be great to get some non-railway buildings in, if possible, to set the scene. And think a bit about ground level changes. Related to both those things:  The track is very close to the backscene so how will that work? A retaining wall is a bit of a cliche. Other solutions might need more space between backscene and track, again possibly affecting the whole layout.

 

JDW’s route into P3 is a nice idea but difficult to do in Peco Streamline because of the angles.

 

I wonder if three platforms is overkill for the era? Maybe two and a carriage siding would be better? Others would know better than me (I’m a steam era bloke) but the advantage of that in the model would be to gain a bit more space.

 

Are the mixed use sidings really thought through? Can they be used effectively or are they really just a headshunt for access to the kick back TMD???

 

Have you still got your fuelling point?

 

Sorry for the insomniac brain dump!

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I tried for ages to get equal spacing in the curves and eventually found an option in the software last night that should do it so I’m going to try that this morning to tidy it up a bit. 

 

I removed the fueling point last night when I played around with the TMD setup but in the cold light of day I don’t really like the changes. It all looks too cramped so I’m going to revert that back to the way it was but try to make the TMD slightly angled. 

 

Good point about the mixed use sidings. They aren’t really long enough for a good sized freight service to use so I’m wondering about making them a stabling point for passenger services.

 

Another great point about the back scene as well. I was thinking about some kind of retail park rear beside platform 3 which transitions into tenement flats with a small back garden as you exit the platform. No idea how to make all of that but it was my initial thoughts. I guess it would be best to get that down on the plan initially and see how the space works out. 

 

Removing platform 3 would certainly give more space but I like the idea of a terminus platform. Looking forward to an extension of the layout that would see the track at platform 1 and 2 become part of a continuous run so they would be through platforms eventually. 

 

Cheers

Andy

Link to post
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, Harlequin said:

4ft might be asking a bit much - especially when you factor in the entry to the fiddle yard, which ideally shouldn't be against the back wall.

 

IMHO you can't do a Minories variant in this case because the running lines don't (naturally) turn with the outbound line closest to the terminal platform sidings.

  

As far as flow is concerned I think some elements could be better ordered. For instance, from the left, the current order is TMD turnout 1, facing crossover, trailing crossover, TMD turnout 2.

 But operations would be smoother if the order were, Facing crossover, TMD 1, TMD 2 (not really needed!), trailing crossover. The facing crossover is then available for all inbound traffic to get directly where it needs and the trailing crossover is only needed for exit from platforms 2 and 3.

  

Using slips would avoid some wiggles but maybe the wiggles are part of the character???

1416977236_Andy1.png.c97986a4d348ef13530b76c840fe0c9f.png

 

No, you are wrong.  Minories works very well on a curve into a station that is left-handed, as we have here.  If you use curved points.  Minories however doesn't work so well on a right-hand curve.

 

I think 4' radius is possible if you try to use all of the available space; currently the main line is somewhat closer to the front of the board.  Push that to the back of the board, where the TMD is now, and you've still got space for the station throat and platforms, set at a slight angle on the board (not parallel - it looks better this way).  

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
1 hour ago, TonyMay said:

 

No, you are wrong.  Minories works very well on a curve into a station that is left-handed, as we have here.  If you use curved points.  Minories however doesn't work so well on a right-hand curve.

 

I think 4' radius is possible if you try to use all of the available space; currently the main line is somewhat closer to the front of the board.  Push that to the back of the board, where the TMD is now, and you've still got space for the station throat and platforms, set at a slight angle on the board (not parallel - it looks better this way).  

 

Two key characteristics of a Minories plan are that the left hand turn is naturally set up by the first trailing crossover and, critically, that that turn must present the outbound line to be closest to the platform lines with the inbound line on the farther side. If the inbound line is nearer the platforms then you need a different arrangement of crossovers and that is then not a Minories plan.

 

Andy's left hand curve could continue curving past the horizontal to present the outbound lines closest to the platforms but it would take a lot of room (especially at 4ft radius) and it would be forced, not natural.

 

Edited by Harlequin
  • Funny 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

Just a thought.... but could the entrance curve be eased if the platforms were moved towards the rear of the board? The curve would be eased a little more if the platforms were arranged at an angle?  There seams to be enough space for everything else and the angle would perhaps improve the overall aesthetic?

 

Griff

 

Edit.... As per Flying Pig’s suggestion.

Edited by griffgriff
Adding a reference
Link to post
Share on other sites

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
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...