Jump to content

Rhydgaled

What-if I could build my 'What-If' layout (the CardiBach as a heritage railway)

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)

Challenge N.1 - Minimum Space Reverse Loops

 

I'm not a huge fan of the traditional oval layout design. Assuming half of the oval is hidden behind the back-scene, a train running left-to-right will disappear from the right hand edge of the model but will reappear on the left hand edge still running from left-to-right. In most respects I would prefer an end-to-end layout with an off-stage fiddle yard or two (one being needed at each end if modelling a through station rather than a terminus). However, a continuous run would be useful for running-in locos and in the case of modelling a through station could possibly save space by allowing both ends to share the same fiddle yard.

 

It would of course be possible to operate a traditional oval (with an off-stage fiddle yard on one side) as an end-to-end layout but if a train is left running around the loop it will still always be running left-to-right (or vice-versa). I've therefore been toying with the idea of having a reverse loop at each end of a double track scenic section as shown in the basic block-plan below.

789321420_BasicBlockplan.thumb.gif.4bbb2ddcc00a96d35681d458ad7b7588.gif

This way, a train can be set running and left alone, and when it moves off-stage at the right hand edge it will reappear from the right hand edge. Of course, this block-plan wastes space by having separate fiddle yards for each end. Also, a reverse loop takes up more space than the simple semi-circle at the end of a traditional oval. If my trains were N gauge I might not worry about that, but since my fleet is in 00 gauge I need to save space. I therefore thought about having the line loop back behind the scenic section from one end to access the fiddle yard at the other end, which would lead into the reverse loops. This is shown on the second basic block-plan, but the two reverse loops would still take still take up a lot of space (these block plans are not to scale).

1628147320_FoldedBlockplan.gif.d2c827d87adac227694fff1cca1a3d4c.gif

Is there a way I can combine the two reverse loops into the space of one of them (eg. by having one with radius 2 curves inside the other using radius 3) and still be able to leave a train running continuously (ie. without having to switch points for the train on each lap)? I've thought about having them on different levels (one above the other) but that would make accessing the stock in the lower fiddle yard rather difficult. After way too many hours in SCARM and Hornby Virtual Railway I have come up with a solution (pictured below) involving three crossovers (Peco ST-250 or Hornby R614/R615) but have I actually saved any space and is there a better way?

80628663_ScarmReverseLoop.gif.9b67c9b9b6c77bfc0b96940b4dcdf17e.gif

Edited by Rhydgaled
Change topic title

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dont know how big you plan your fiddleyards to be, but have you considered making your reversal loops at either end your fiddleyard by adding additional tracks there and using curved points.

 

It won't be a minimal space anymore but it will reduce the amount of the layout that isn't scenic.  Depending on scale you can get a couple of trains in each line plus leave one spare for through running.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are no simple answers. If you do as you suggest, the train will come back from where it went - but it will be the wrong way round. Not noticeable with some modern DMUs but true for most trains.

 

Any solution with two reverse loops is going to take up a lot of space unless, as you suggest you put one above the other which brings all the complications of gradients as well as restricted access.

 

A compromise solution is to have just one return loop with a continuous circuit on the outer edge of the layout. When the train is diverted onto the reverse loop it ends up in hidden sidings where it can be reversed.

 

A layout that was on the exhibition circuit some years ago was basically just two reverse loops (double-track) with double junctions in the middle (no station). The hidden sidings were only accessible in one direction from the outer rail of the left-hand loop.

 

I would not start from here if I was you. How much space have you got and what sort of layout, trains, etc do you want? 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2nd radius is a bit marginal for some modern RTR stock, 3rd and 4th would be better

No 2 has a bad ratio of visible to hidden track, it gets very boring waiting for a train.

The double return loop would be better with 3rd and 4th radius and the reverse curve removed by using a bit of flexi.  reverse curves are a good source of derailments.

How much room do you have?

My never completed loft layout had a hidden siding level from which trains could arrive from left or right and leave towards left or right and  depart left or right, trouble was it involved gradients, not really a problem, and complicated operating which was.

Screenshot (315).png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Two fiddle yards eat up space. That's one of the reasons the oval pattern is so popular - one FY shared by both ends of the scene.

 

Reversing loops take up yet more space.

 

It is possible to combine reversing loops with the end curves of an oval to get something of the best of both worlds.

 

Another neat answer might be to avoid the balloon loops entirely and use a "Denny pattern" fiddle yard at each end instead. That is to say, a sector plate long enough to hold an entire train, which can be spun 180 degrees to reverse all the trains stored on it. Space saving but no continuous run, admittedly.

 

Edited by Harlequin
  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It largely depends on the space you have for the layout.

 

If it is a dedicated room then the obvious solution (should there be enough width to the room) is to do a around the wall layout and place the fiddle yard against one wall, and have the 2 reverse loops in one of the fiddle yard corners - with enough space and using change of elevation on the 2 short walls you could even stack your 2 reverse loops.

 

Alternately, if this is a middle of the room layout then do as your second drawing put put the fiddle yard behind the scenic portion where your return main is running.

 

But the bigger question is are you trading one problem for another - you say the fact that the trains always run R->L on a standard roundy layout bothers you, but unless you are running goods trains only you are likely to simply swap that visual issue for trains running with the stock in the wrong place (for example, first class at the wrong end).  Which is the lesser problems will be up to you.

 

 

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And the layout with 3 diamond crossings limits you to only one train running round unless you have some fancy automation with interlocking.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, mdvle said:

But the bigger question is are you trading one problem for another - you say the fact that the trains always run R->L on a standard roundy layout bothers you, but unless you are running goods trains only you are likely to simply swap that visual issue for trains running with the stock in the wrong place (for example, first class at the wrong end).  Which is the lesser problems will be up to you.

 

 


The same can apply to some Goods Traffic - loaded coal wagons may one way, with empties returning the other.
 

Perhaps one consideration is which of three things the operator is visually most interested in:

 

watching  / following engines heading trains, in which case the reversing loop idea would seem to have great appeal, or:

watching trains - paying more attention to coach formations and wagon loads, which might favour an oval, or:

watching the procession of trains past a fixed point - the scenic section - in which case a long wait between appearances may get boring.

 

Just a thought.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've tried endless different types of reverse loops in bored Anyrail moments. I use nested 2nd, 3rd and 4th radius loops as hidden storage sidings on my own 12 x 6 layout.  Even a 2nd radius loop is >2m long which is six Mk 2 coaches plus loco.

 

Teabag

Reverse Loops.png

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you for all the replies so far.

 

19 hours ago, woodenhead said:

Dont know how big you plan your fiddleyards to be, but have you considered making your reversal loops at either end your fiddleyard by adding additional tracks there and using curved points.

 

It won't be a minimal space anymore but it will reduce the amount of the layout that isn't scenic.  Depending on scale you can get a couple of trains in each line plus leave one spare for through running.

 

You mean do something like my first block plan above but use three tracks (2nd, 3rd and 4th radius curves) in the reverse loops at both ends? That's a nice idea for increasing fiddle yard capacity even if it is not enough by itself.

 

19 hours ago, Joseph_Pestell said:

There are no simple answers. If you do as you suggest, the train will come back from where it went - but it will be the wrong way round. Not noticeable with some modern DMUs but true for most trains.

 

I would not start from here if I was you. How much space have you got and what sort of layout, trains, etc do you want? 

 

I think I may still be trying to get far too much into my model. My dream for many years has been to model Cardigan station and Whitland station, not as they were but in a 'what if' scenario in the late 1990s/early 2000s where the Cardigan branch is a heritage railway (although the Cardigan track layout I was trying to reproduce indentically). To make Whitland interesting would require a far larger space than I'm ever likely to have so I am starting to accept that it'll need to be significantly different from the real thing.

 

The space doesn't currently exist, but an area of garden has recently become available and the family are talking about building a large insulated shed (which would be about 7m by 4m). There are a number of options proposed for the use of the shed, one of which (a pool table) could perhaps coexist with a model railway.

15 hours ago, mdvle said:

It largely depends on the space you have for the layout.

 

If it is a dedicated room then the obvious solution (should there be enough width to the room) is to do a around the wall layout and place the fiddle yard against one wall, and have the 2 reverse loops in one of the fiddle yard corners - with enough space and using change of elevation on the 2 short walls you could even stack your 2 reverse loops.

 

Alternately, if this is a middle of the room layout then do as your second drawing put put the fiddle yard behind the scenic portion where your return main is running.

 

But the bigger question is are you trading one problem for another - you say the fact that the trains always run R->L on a standard roundy layout bothers you, but unless you are running goods trains only you are likely to simply swap that visual issue for trains running with the stock in the wrong place (for example, first class at the wrong end).  Which is the lesser problems will be up to you.

 

 

 

Something around three walls of the shed is what I'm looking at doing, with 'Whitland' along one long wall, a compressed 'Cardigan' on one short wall and a fiddle yard along the other short wall. I've not yet worked out whether I can compress Cardigan and Whitland enough to fit without losing the ability to run trains of the lengths I had hoped for. Something like a HST I probably wouldn't send round the reverse loop anyway; I'd stop it, reverse the direction on the controller and have it come back with first class still where it should be. Steam charters would be more of a problem, as there are no turnables or triangles west of Whitland yet the loco would be turned by the reverse loop.

 

18 hours ago, DavidCBroad said:

2nd radius is a bit marginal for some modern RTR stock, 3rd and 4th would be better

No 2 has a bad ratio of visible to hidden track, it gets very boring waiting for a train.

The double return loop would be better with 3rd and 4th radius and the reverse curve removed by using a bit of flexi.  reverse curves are a good source of derailments.

How much room do you have?

My never completed loft layout had a hidden siding level from which trains could arrive from left or right and leave towards left or right and  depart left or right, trouble was it involved gradients, not really a problem, and complicated operating which was.

Screenshot (315).png

 

I just threw that together quickly to illustrate the basic arangement and was going to put a straight in to break up the reverse curve. I have now made this change on the plan below (see end of post) and incorporated your flexi track idea for one of the two tracks (if I actually build this I might use flexi track for both as you have done depending on how many setrack curves I have to use up). What stock in particular has trouble with 2nd radius curves as I fear I have quite a few in my box of track?

 

17 hours ago, Harlequin said:

Another neat answer might be to avoid the balloon loops entirely and use a "Denny pattern" fiddle yard at each end instead. That is to say, a sector plate long enough to hold an entire train, which can be spun 180 degrees to reverse all the trains stored on it. Space saving but no continuous run, admittedly.

 

 

I like that idea, if it were just me I'd probably go for a fiddle yard at each end (like my first block plan above but without the reverse loops) and the idea of making the fiddle yard into a massive turntable appeals as it would avoid needing a loco run-round facility off-stage. However I have a brother who is telling me I need a continuous run, and for runnning in my old locos after years of storage he's probably right.

 

14 hours ago, Keith Addenbrooke said:


The same can apply to some Goods Traffic - loaded coal wagons may one way, with empties returning the other.
 

Perhaps one consideration is which of three things the operator is visually most interested in:

 

watching  / following engines heading trains, in which case the reversing loop idea would seem to have great appeal, or:

watching trains - paying more attention to coach formations and wagon loads, which might favour an oval, or:

watching the procession of trains past a fixed point - the scenic section - in which case a long wait between appearances may get boring.

 

Just a thought.

 

Good question; I'm not really sure what I want from a layout since it's so long since I've had one. I think I enjoyed the end-to-end layout I had before we moved house (mainly running passenger trains between two stations and stopping them gently in the platforms) more than the short-lived oval we had in the spare room here before it became my brother's bedroom. I've also helped run the 3mm scale Cardigan layout at the CardiBach Society's exhibition and was quite interested in trying to simulate operation of the working time table. I've also made up timetables based the real railways of Pembrokeshire that I'd like to try and operate on my model of 'Whitland'. Perhaps this is most like your third option, in which case the long run behind the scenes might not be great.

 

Here's a plan of the whole shed concept. The track plan for 'Whitland' is just off the top of my head and I've not put 'Cardigan' in yet expect as just a single track. The red track is a gradient to get the branch above the main line. Still needs alot of work.1004127869_NewShedConcept.thumb.gif.9736ba83878382efd24e4957ca24109a.gif

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A pool table takes up a lot of space (well, not the table itself but the playing space around it.).

 

On the face of it, your best bet is going to be the traditional oval around the four sides of the shed with the reverse loops one above the other in one corner.

 

I don't have details of Cardigan to hand but I don't think it should be too difficult to fit Whitland and Cardigan into the sort of space that you would have available and leave plenty of space for your hidden sidings and reverse loops. If the family does agree the shed project, worth planning the layout before the shed is ordered as door position could be critical. And outward opening door/doors as well if at all possible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
47 minutes ago, Rhydgaled said:

Here's a plan of the whole shed concept. The track plan for 'Whitland' is just off the top of my head and I've not put 'Cardigan' in yet expect as just a single track. The red track is a gradient to get the branch above the main line. Still needs alot of work.1004127869_NewShedConcept.thumb.gif.9736ba83878382efd24e4957ca24109a.gif

 

 

Hi Rhydgaled,

 

Operationally speaking, you are definitely on the right lines by modelling a main line junction and a branch line (with or without terminus station) because that lets you run mainline stock and branch line stock and perform lots of interesting operations at the junction. (Edit: Sorry that's assuming it was back in the day when the branch line really was a branch line...)

 

I completely understand that this is an initial draft but:

  • Before you get too deeply into it can I plead with you not to use Settrack parts in the scenic areas and only use them in hidden areas if you have no other choice. A layout like this deserves something closer to prototype trackwork and even if you're just sketching it helps to start using those parts to understand them and the limits they impose on the design.
  • A design that circumnavigates the shed would make more efficient use of the space and it looks like there's room for a reversing loop somewhere.
  • There's an awful lot of hidden track.
  • The gradient to "Cardigan" looks like it's probably a bit steep.
  • Also, the way the branch line rejoins the main line in hidden track is a bit, shall we say, "smelly"... :wink_mini:

This could be a really great layout!

 

Edited by Harlequin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This might not be of interest, but you never know. 

 

This is N gauge in a 17.5ft room, but shows how I tackled the trains re-appearing on the wrong side of the layout, and may promote additional thoughts. Two storage yards co- housed on teh same board but completely separate from each-other A loop at the end of each storage yard. The layout is effectively a form of folded dog bone   The size of the train obviously dictates how long yoour sidings are and therefore how much space you need for this.

 

Best

 

Scott

 

image.png.52132abb841d275272056ae730da488f.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Rhydgaled said:

I think I may still be trying to get far too much into my model.

 

Most of us do at the beginning, and with the start of every new idea for a layout.

 

2 hours ago, Rhydgaled said:

The space doesn't currently exist, but an area of garden has recently become available and the family are talking about building a large insulated shed (which would be about 7m by 4m). There are a number of options proposed for the use of the shed, one of which (a pool table) could perhaps coexist with a model railway.

 

Perhaps being a key word - while that is a generous size for a railway room, for mixed use the other uses can quickly take up space eliminating the advantage unless you can accept a shelf style layout (say 18" wide, some 24") that allows you to stay out of the way of the other uses.

 

In particular, not being terribly familiar with pool I did a quick search and it is pointed out the space for the people playing (and more specifically the 58" cue's) mean it is a lot more space than just the table.

 

This website gives some examples of the space requirements - https://billiards.colostate.edu/faq/table/sizes/

 

Some of that could possibly be worked around by putting the layout up higher, but that can bring other problems.

 

2 hours ago, Rhydgaled said:

Something around three walls of the shed is what I'm looking at doing, with 'Whitland' along one long wall,

 

Except your layout plan below is not around 3 walls - it is taking up a large part of the interior of the room.  When we talk of a layout going around 2/3/4 walls it is as a arm-reachable shelf and not full size tables placed up against a wall.

 

2 hours ago, Rhydgaled said:

Here's a plan of the whole shed concept. The track plan for 'Whitland' is just off the top of my head and I've not put 'Cardigan' in yet expect as just a single track. The red track is a gradient to get the branch above the main line. Still needs alot of work.1004127869_NewShedConcept.thumb.gif.9736ba83878382efd24e4957ca24109a.gif

 

 

There appear to be a lot of issues with this layout - difficult to tell without a 12" grid scale.

 

First, this layout is effectively taking up the entire room leaving little to no space for anything else - by the time you add say 2' to the interior edges for walking/standing space there is limited space available for anything else in what is left of the middle of the room.  So this layout needs a dedicated layout space.

 

There is a lot of track that is unreachable - bad design as it doesn't allow for derailments, stalled trains, cleaning track, etc. - consider what your reach is with your arm, allowing for not destroying any scenery, and a reach of about more than 2' quickly becomes a problem.  For estimation, if you are going for say 24" radius curves then that means your 2 short wall sections are 4' deep and say 5' to 6' deep - far too difficult to reach those track areas.

 

And while the access holes in the bottom left solve the track access in that area, in general it is a bad idea - what works when you are young and flexible doesn't age well.

 

There are some good ideas there, but I suspect you need to rethink things.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi

There is far too much non scenic track for my liking, and the hidden sidings are ugly and would be awkward to operate involving a reverse movement out of the tunnel into the scenic bit in order to depart. I con't ike the branch rejoining the main line for the top return bend either.

Hence doodle. @Harlequin  can smooth out the stations I changed the dead end to a loop and couple of sidings for operational interest  but this is a concept doodle for  the main layout and another doodle for the Hidden sidings, Points and track are all streamline except the tight bits set track 2nd and 3rd Radius. might squeeze in 3rd and 4th at a pinch.

All shutting involves reversing in, easier than reversing out, just grab the brake van and pull.

The scenic side loop sidings can be shunted using the non scenc line as a Headshunt so the don't need to pop out of the tunnel and back in again like startled rabbits.

Branch is shorter and steeper but should be do able and has a siding.  US folk pass trains in dead end sidings so the branch goods could cross the passenger by hiding in the siding

Screenshot (316)a.png

Screenshot (316)b.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you all for the further replies. You have certainly given me a lot to think about and (quite correctly) highlighted some serious flaws. I have been playing around with SCARM some more, but some of the same mistakes keep cropping up again.

 

This topic though was given the title 'minimum space reverse loops' and I notice I have strayed from that somewhat. I'm not sure if I should just walk away now, rename the topic (assuming I can) or start a new topic with a more open-ended title.

Share this post


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

This topic though was given the title 'minimum space reverse loops' and I notice I have strayed from that somewhat. I'm not sure if I should just walk away now, rename the topic (assuming I can) or start a new topic with a more open-ended title.

If you go to the opening post of the topic and edit that then you can change the name of the thread.

 

Andi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Rhydgaled said:

Thank you all for the further replies. You have certainly given me a lot to think about and (quite correctly) highlighted some serious flaws. I have been playing around with SCARM some more, but some of the same mistakes keep cropping up again.

 

Welcome to the process of trying to fit what one wants in a layout into what will actually fit.  Most of us (unless blessed with being happy with say a 1x4 plank from the start) go through this, and some of us even never reach the end.

 

The good news is that this way is cheap - actually building something that has serious flaws can be costly.

 

1 hour ago, Rhydgaled said:

This topic though was given the title 'minimum space reverse loops' and I notice I have strayed from that somewhat. I'm not sure if I should just walk away now, rename the topic (assuming I can) or start a new topic with a more open-ended title.

 

Dagworth has indicated how to change the topic title.  That is likely the best choice as that way anyone trying to help can scroll back through the existing thread to see how we got to where you are now - unless you decide to go in an entirely different direction, at which point a new topic would seem to be a better choice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 18/05/2020 at 13:29, Joseph_Pestell said:

A pool table takes up a lot of space (well, not the table itself but the playing space around it.).

 

On topic because Aberystwyth is in Ceredigion, which the Cardi Bach got fairly close to (!), I was once involved in a game of pool in a pub in that weird little town that was stopped for 3 hours injury time after my partner (we were playing doubles) damaged a knuckle on one of her fingers (she had a habit of cupping the rear of the cue with them) on the wall behind her.  It was a dodgy biker pub and she was taken by one of the dodgy bikers to A & E at Bronglais while the table was held for us, dodgy not always corresponding to unfriendly.  Some form of protection for the layout when it's not in use might be advisable.  

 

The game was resumed with Dawn's fingers bandaged up.  We lost.  It was good fun, though, and lots of beer was indulged in.

 

Someone raised the subject of minimum radii and what will go around them; RTR models have the minimum advised curve specified on the box, and I advise staying a radius above that (also agreeing with the point about setrack banned on the scenic part of the layout).  Even with this precaution, I have a Hornby 42xx, minimum advised  2nd radius, that occasionally objects to the 3rd radius of a Hornby 4th to 3rd radius turnout, and needs care in driving around it.  As some of the plans have low radius curves and turnouts in hidden siding locations where reliable running is vital, and continuous running presumably at speed is required, I just thought I'd mention it...

Edited by The Johnster
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, The Johnster said:

 As some of the plans have low radius curves and turnouts in hidden siding locations where reliable running is vital, and continuous running presumably at speed is required, I just thought I'd mention it...

 

A good point to consider in general. 

 

Many seem to take the view that the only reason to avoid low radius curves and turnouts is for appearance reasons, and thus they are acceptable in hidden locations.  If all your stock runs reliably on those constraints then great, but the number one goal for hidden locations should be reliability with space saved a distant second.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Those with access to a track planning program that handles transition curves might want to check out the idea of an 180 degree symmetrical return half circle with transitioning continuously in to minimum radius at the dead center and then the mirror image with transitioning continuously back out.

 

That situation minimises coupler swing and should also avoid buffer lock.  Bringing the "in and out" back to double track will take a bit more thought ;)

 

Andy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I come to this from the viewpoint of long ago (the 70s) having 'progressed' to minimum 36" radius (24" allowed for loco release only) and scale couplings.  After a long unstable lifestyle post divorce break, I picked up again 4 years ago, to find that I was now unable to use the scale instanter and screw couplings because my eyesight and hand-eye coordination had deteriorated, along with my steadiness of hand.  A rethink was undertaken and I elected to 'regress' to tension locks, standardising on Bachmann NEMS as far as possible.  

 

This has allowed me to use setrack in the fy, including the Hornby miscreant mentioned, and enabled me to increase fy capacity from 4 roads to 7.  This was before I bought the 42xx, and the miscreant is the only non-Peco turnout on the layout, and the only one that has a ? over it; I may well replace it with a Peco version if I can find one.  I have 100% reliable running and coupling performance except for driver/signalman/operator/Johnster-shaped-idiot errors.  I have found the visual offence of the t/ls to be less than I expected; I have mostly learned to ignore/live with them, and they are less obtrusive on steam era UK stock than Kaydees.  I propel autos into the fiddle yard and some are ancient kit built K's A31s, and a bit of jiggery pokery with the couplings has enabled propelling around no.4 curves without buffer locking.

  • Friendly/supportive 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the advice on whether to start a new topic and how to rename this one. I have now done the latter, I hope the new one is better.

18 hours ago, mdvle said:

The good news is that this way is cheap - actually building something that has serious flaws can be costly.

 

My thoughts exactly, much better to get a good design worked out in advance of buying stuff (although I do have a load of setrack and a few trains from past layouts, if I didn't N guage would be looking tempting right now).

 

2 hours ago, The Johnster said:

I have a Hornby 42xx, minimum advised  2nd radius, that occasionally objects to the 3rd radius of a Hornby 4th to 3rd radius turnout, and needs care in driving around it.

 

I wasn't aware that Hornby produced curved points with different radii, the only ones I have available to me in SCARM are R8074/R8075, which I believe are 2nd radius. If your 42xx struggles with a 3rd-4th radius curved turnout then I should certainly avoid R8074/R8075 (I have lots of stock which Hornby advise should not be used on 1st radius curves).

 

Anyway, back to the layout planning. M. R. C. Price's Oakwood Press book on the railway (I think my copy is of the second edition) contains this map of Cardigan:

CardiganMap.jpg.78dae9e6ef36bed2acd26ac765577b1d.jpg

 

I love the way that looks with the curve and the way hardly any of the lines are running parallel to the edges of the map. I've been trying to get a similar feel but at the same time compress the throat, without much success. One change I've made is that I have put the cattle dock siding coming off the line to the goods shed rather than the engine shed road. Another map that I've seen has it that way and the photos showing that area seem to agree. I'm not entirely sure from the map above which points are curved ones and whether there are any 'Y' points involved. I also added loco-release points for the goods shed road. Track is flexi, setrack straights and streamline points except for four ST‑238 (Y-point curve, 859.6mm radius I believe). To give some sense of scale, the blue box is 610mm tall.Cardigan1.png.30bc2bf7c937a0b279d5b07a1e9844c7.png

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a lovely prototype and I like your interpretation of it.  If ever a branch should have had an extension, down to St Dogmael's quay in this case, it's this one; you can almost see where it would have curved around the saw mill and crossed the A487.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Rhydgaled said:

 One change I've made is that I have put the cattle dock siding coming off the line to the goods shed rather than the engine shed road. Another map that I've seen has it that way and the photos showing that area seem to agree.

 

General rule is to treat maps as a "something like this" rather than an exactly correct track layout.  The people making the maps weren't worried about getting track layout correct, and it is also possible that updates to the maps wouldn't include updating the tracks.

 

So in general try and find either photos or official railway documents.  In this case the signal box diagram (while not to scale) will what you need to confirm your thinking.

https://www.s-r-s.org.uk/html/gwm/S2214.htm

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.