Jump to content

TomJ

Wantage Great Western - Small space N

Recommended Posts

In order to get my mojo back I’ve decided to use a space in my railway room to build a small N gauge shelf layout. Space available is 5ft x 9inch which is plenty for a conventional BLT. 

 

However......

 

I want something a bit different! But not sure quite what! Plenty of shunting to play with and some wagons to shuffle around. My stock is all 50s/60s WR steam (with a few SR locos). Playing with some templates I can up with this

 

DC6F6337-A092-46B8-8EC6-00949DB98AC3.png.c389b42e06624ddf436b1dd62e47b221.png

The trackplan is based on the Wantage tramway - but the premise is that it was built as a light railway, later taken over by the GWR. They ’Swindon-ised ’ it but on the cheap, so lots of tin buildings etc. 

I thought the through engine shed was a step too far so have moved it to the headshunt. And the fiddle yard is screened by some kind of industry - gasworks or dairy. Plan should take 2 coaches + van or 6 wagon freights. 

 

Any comments or suggestions?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that works pretty well. The track layout is a mirror image of Wallingford. You would need traps between the top siding and loop points and at the platform end of loop, but otherwise, I would say that's good to go.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks. Wantage and Wallingford were my inspirations - cramped termini with a slightly different track layout. At Wallingford the points for the engine shed and gas works were directly opposite the platform but that wouldn’t fit in my space. 

Hopefully it will look a bit like a a slice of a Berkshire market town bypassed by the main GWR!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Hi Tom,

 

The clearance between some of the track looks very tight, especially the run round loop and the top two sidings.

There's a nasty kink in the run round loop that needs to be straightened out. I suggest making the run round loop much longer.

You could think about using the diagonals to make the design a bit more dynamic.

The position of the loading/cattle dock looks a bit odd - better associated with the goods sidings somehow, if you can.

 

Edited by Harlequin
  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry to be a bore but that track diagram simply won't work.  The curve for the lower part of the run round loop is impossible, and possibly likewise the upper one.  Whilst I accept that what I am looking at is track width including sleepers, there is something seriously wrong with the geometry.  Stock will not be able to pass on the upper lines. I assume you are using a track layout designer - it looks like the one my friend uses on his iMac - but there is something screwy with the point/switch templates here. The crossover bottom right gives some idea as to how far the lines have to be apart for passing stock, though again 41mm centres will work in confined spaces - you don't have to have the Peco Settrack 55mm or the 45mm (IIRC) centres Streamline - but you DO need to ensure clearances AND you need to have your curve checker switched on - most planning software will tell you when the curves are wrong.

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for everyone’s input. I’m using a free Mac product as i don’t have a PC for Anyrail. I’m still getting used to it (and can’t save in the free version) so this is a crude diagram to check the actually arrangement. 

 

Ive done it 1:1 with actual points and templates and it does seem to work and fit!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, imt said:

Sorry to be a bore but that track diagram simply won't work.  The curve for the lower part of the run round loop is impossible, and possibly likewise the upper one.  Whilst I accept that what I am looking at is track width including sleepers, there is something seriously wrong with the geometry.  Stock will not be able to pass on the upper lines. I assume you are using a track layout designer - it looks like the one my friend uses on his iMac - but there is something screwy with the point/switch templates here. The crossover bottom right gives some idea as to how far the lines have to be apart for passing stock, though again 41mm centres will work in confined spaces - you don't have to have the Peco Settrack 55mm or the 45mm (IIRC) centres Streamline - but you DO need to ensure clearances AND you need to have your curve checker switched on - most planning software will tell you when the curves are wrong.

Hi Ian, You are correct in everything you're saying but note that the OP is talking about 2mm scale so the track spacings resulting from the track system he uses and the possible "finescale" track spacing will be different.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, TomJ said:

Thanks for everyone’s input. I’m using a free Mac product as i don’t have a PC for Anyrail. I’m still getting used to it (and can’t save in the free version) so this is a crude diagram to check the actually arrangement. 

 

Ive done it 1:1 with actual points and templates and it does seem to work and fit!

Hi Tom,

 

It's great to be working to scale and using accurate templates but, with respect, you'll only know if the plan fits when the track spacing allows vehicles to pass on adjacent tracks where required and the track is kink-free.

 

P.S. You might like to have a look at my OO design for Wallingford, which is in "Layout & Track Design" a few pages back. It required very little compression to fit in 10ft by 2.5ft. [Edit: Looking back, I see you already know about it.]

 

Edited by Harlequin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Definitely not 2mm finescale! Way beyond my skills!

Bog standard Peco code 55 streamline with small radius points

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, TomJ said:

Definitely not 2mm finescale! Way beyond my skills!

Bog standard Peco code 55 streamline with small radius points

 

If you're using small radius points, you may still want to pad out the three points at the left end of the loop with a couple of slivers of straight track.  Small points are short at the switch end and don't give full track spacing when connected 'nose to tail' as these are.

 

You could also try using a Y bottom centre of the loop as it might look more natural.

 

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Flying Pig said:

 

If you're using small radius points, you may still want to pad out the three points at the left end of the loop with a couple of slivers of straight track.  Small points are short at the switch end and don't give full track spacing when connected 'nose to tail' as these are.

 

You could also try using a Y bottom centre of the loop as it might look more natural.

 

The program you are using is pretty awful.. No way can you get excessively close track spacing with Peco either set track or streamline and using short bits of track as a filler is a guaranteed way of getting problems, they tend to get out of level and are a real PITA.

The track layout of Wallingford has a much longer run round.  As a rule of thumb first point out of the FY is the loop point and all the sidings come off the loop so they don't need facing point locks as the loop is not used by passengers. Its not clear which is the main line and which is the loop on the plan.   From that it doesn't really matter about trap or catch points as it could only be a light railway.  I simply wouldn't build a plan like that. I would use a mix of Set track and streamline, ideally all streamline and go for something like this 

Screenshot (349).png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks again for all the input. I did see the whole thread about Wallingford (and added some info about locos!) but as mentioned the loop is a bit longer and I didn’t have the space. The idea is something that will fit in N gauge on a 5ft x 9inch single board (woodwork is not my strong point).

A fairly conventional BLT would fit but I wanted something slightly different - hence looking at Wallingford and Wantage. 

 

The ‘concept’ I had was a town bypassed by the GWR Mainline later connected by a light railway - not tramway - that was later taken over by the GWR. 

Ill have another play again with templates tonight, giving up on the software. Apparently MrsJ doesn’t think that needing to use Anyrail is a justifiable reason to buy a PC!

Share this post


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

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.