Jump to content
 

First and last layout


pgcroc
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • RMweb Premium
23 hours ago, Keith Addenbrooke said:

Hi Pete - sorry to hear about your travel problems - it is all still a nightmare for so many people and not really getting easier.

So am I Keith although I could be in a worse place.

'Only' 1060 cases and 19 deaths. 

Still want to get home before the wife sells the house and moves to the Caribbean :aggressive: 

16 hours ago, Chimer said:

 

Obviously I still think my last plan was better :).

You are correct Chimer. 

I have now got rid of one station at the bottom and redone the tracks.

Took on board your suggestion of a trailing crossover at the top right. Done. 

TBH I still don't get where facing and trailing crossovers should be used.

 

15 hours ago, ISW said:

There are very few stations with a track having through platforms on both sides.

Ian and Keith, I can now plainly see where I went wrong there. One station gone and the top one reworked. Thanks.

10 hours ago, Harlequin said:

I think you're floundering, not quite knowing what to do for the best or how to do it! Is that fair?

Harlequin, you are absolutely spot on!

I have not been on a train or a railway station for over 30 years, (working abroad in a country which did not have trains, flew everywhere).

To answer your points:

  • Must have the tunnels for her indoors.
  • I would like the turntable, goods yard and loco shed.
  • I have already removed one station at the bottom.
  • I would like a storage yard at the top. One road has been removed,
  • No, two will do. I have already done this.
  • I don't have any real stations or places in mind. all fictitious.
  • A bit of both as I have now taken off a lot of track.
  • Realism is about 7.

I have attached a quick rework of the layout I did this morning as I need to go shopping, (otherwise I will have to go to the pub and get a take away! ) Some of the curves are not very good and the spacing is a bit rough. I am sure I can tidy it up. 

 

 

1 hour ago, Keith Addenbrooke said:

If Pete had been able to get home already, I’d suggest laying out a piece of Flextrack - or even a piece of string - on the actual boards to visualise a gentle curve.  

Keith, I was told last year by an experienced modeller to virtually do that. Just lay track, not fixed, to see what works.

Unfortunately I've not really had a chance to do much of that. You can see from my first post how far I got.

 

Guys, I am very very grateful for all the time and trouble you are spending on this. Especially as I know nothing!

This is surely a great forum.

Cheers

Pete

Capture 6.JPG

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

That's a definite improvement, Pete!

 

If the pink and green lines were closer together all round with platforms outside them rather than between them it would be much more realistic. (Note: Double track through-lines with platforms either side is Extremely Common, Single track through-lines with platforms either side, Uncommon.)

 

But there are still a few problems and I think you're failing to see past some very old, very fixed ideas. Hopefully, we can throw some challenging new ideas your way to help you get to a better solution. @Chimer @Zomboid @Flying Pig

 

BTW: Using a computer program does not inherently make rigid and boring designs... (And it's the best way to exchange ideas on RMWeb!)

 

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

  • RMweb Premium
1 hour ago, Keith Addenbrooke said:


Looking at Pete’s drawing, I suspect that SCARM (like Anyrail) May have preset Objects that can be used for Setrack / Skaledale platform pieces, which are straight. Using them therefore introduces a constraint. 
 

If Pete had been able to get home already, I’d suggest laying out a piece of Flextrack - or even a piece of string - on the actual boards to visualise a gentle curve.  When I transfer my ideas to a computer, I tend not to try and include the platforms for that reason, but I’ve worked out where I want them.  (For presentation I just add them as a rough PowerPoint overlay when finished, but not when designing).  I liked the nicely angled station in your previous design.

 

For me, Keith, the real constraints (after the need to get round the corners of course) are the station throats - they must let me do what I want (usually, terminate/run round/reverse trains, include a branch junction, and allow trailing access to a goods yard of some sort).  The platform roads just have to join the throats together - and be long enough!!  Then I draw the platforms, which can take hours if they're curved, fiddling about with curve radii and centres - the next release of X-TrackCad is going to enable drawing lines parallel to tracks (it already does tracks parallel to tracks) which will make a big difference.

 

Just seen pgcroc's latest iteration - will comment later!  And having just spotted his icon, guess his principal concerns today will be centred on Brentford, and not the railway station either ........

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

One other little thing.  I note 2 dotted arrows on your diagram, just in case they are direction indicators can I gently remind you that we drive on the left on railways too (usually).

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
2 hours ago, Chimer said:

Just seen pgcroc's latest iteration - will comment later!  And having just spotted his icon, guess his principal concerns today will be centred on Brentford, and not the railway station either ........

Chimer, we are trying to get promotion so we get the big payoff when we come straight back down.

Our good loan players will go back to their clubs at the end of the season and we will be left with me and my 12 year old grandson :dance_mini:

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

Good plan for the Swans .... right, back to railways ......

 

Regarding island platforms, in both cases you show a track between the platform and a "station building".   How passengers get from one to the other is an obvious issue.  Most often (?) in the UK, with a single island platform you will find the station building on a road bridge crossing over the tracks, with a ramp or steps or both down to the platform.  You could easily work this scenically for the lower station, trickier for the upper one where two platforms would probably be better.  I think your arrangement can be found in countries where the authorities are still happy for people to wander across the rails .... 

 

An island platform obviously moves the two tracks further apart than normal, and they need to come together again as soon as poss.  One way of doing this if you've got crossovers at both ends looks like this .... I've added a road and a station building to illustrate the other point too.

 

1086367754_Islandjpg.jpg.4fc5197ee868a74e1c3be3ab173e8990.jpg

 

One problem that remains is that the fiddle yard is now just a loop off your outer (clockwise) circuit, so although you can get from the FY to the inner circuit by reversing a train in the upper station, and back to the FY by reversing it again (realism 3 on the @Harlequin scale), this isn't something that you can sensibly do with a freight train, especially one with a brake van (realism = 0).  The double junctions leading to the fiddle yard on my last version allowed direct access from both circuits, providing the flexibility you haven't got here.

 

Facing and trailing crossovers ..... very briefly, and I'm sure there are hundreds of examples that can (and will) be given to prove me wrong, a facing crossover is unlikely to be found anywhere other than on the approach to a terminus, where it allows an arriving train to access all platforms. There will also be what the arriving train sees as a trailing crossover, which allows departing trains to leave from any platform.  But at through stations, all crossovers will be trailing.  This basically ensures a train can only get onto the "wrong" line by stopping and reversing, which is unlikely to happen by accident ......

 

Cheers

 

Chris

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

Hi Pete,

 

If you had one station in the form that Chris is suggesting and the other as a pair of platforms either side of the double-track with a footbridge, that would add some variety.

 

I have the feeling that your design is being held hostage by that turntable! Could it be moved?

 

The storage roads are nearly 10 feet long. Do they need to be that long? (Stacking up two or more trains in the same loop can be a pain in the neck if you want to get one at the back out...) What train lengths are you imagining running?

 

How would you feel about multiple levels? E.g. Building on top of your existing boards and having some track rising up to that level? (If it could be done.)

 

How would you feel about building more baseboards across the existing operating well? Either as a permanent fixture that you have to duck under or as a temporary bridge that you just set up when you need to use it? (I'm thinking about reversing loops...!)

 

Can I ask another "vision" question?

  • Have you thought about the type of operations you want to do? Would you be happy to watch trains circulate while you amuse yourself shunting wagons or moving locos in the shed? Or would you like to operate to a sequence or timetable of pre-planned movements?

 

Edited by Harlequin
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
8 hours ago, Chimer said:

 

For me, Keith, the real constraints (after the need to get round the corners of course) are the station throats - they must let me do what I want (usually, terminate/run round/reverse trains, include a branch junction, and allow trailing access to a goods yard of some sort).  The platform roads just have to join the throats together - and be long enough!!  Then I draw the platforms, which can take hours if they're curved, fiddling about with curve radii and centres - the next release of X-TrackCad is going to enable drawing lines parallel to tracks (it already does tracks parallel to tracks) which will make a big difference.

 

Just seen pgcroc's latest iteration - will comment later!  And having just spotted his icon, guess his principal concerns today will be centred on Brentford, and not the railway station either ........


Hi again Pete.  @Chimer’s advice here is excellent.  I should have made it clear that my suggestion regarding curved platforms was only a response to your question about the long straight platforms running parallel to the baseboard edges in your drawing.  Apologies for not being very clear.

 

8 hours ago, Harlequin said:

BTW: Using a computer program does not inherently make rigid and boring designs... (And it's the best way to exchange ideas on RMWeb!)

 


...and especially helpful when 2,500 miles from a layout room!
 

While I can be a bit ‘old school’ in using a variety of approaches at different times - because it works for me - there’s no doubt that the programs we have make a big difference in facilitating these conversations, as @Harlequin says, and in helping to avoid potentially costly mistakes when things don’t fit!  Even when I’ve laid out everything on a board, I still double check it (and make changes) on the computer.  Do keep using them.
_____________
 

Looking at the list I think this all makes sense - it’s definitely one thing I’d suggest every layout design should have: 

 

8 hours ago, pgcroc said:

 

  • Must have the tunnels for her indoors.
  • I would like the turntable, goods yard and loco shed.
  • I have already removed one station at the bottom.
  • I would like a storage yard at the top. One road has been removed,
  • No, two will do. I have already done this.
  • I don't have any real stations or places in mind. all fictitious.
  • A bit of both as I have now taken off a lot of track.
  • Realism is about 7.

 


Based on this list, the kind of concept I’d gravitate towards would be a single junction station serving a medium sized town with a branch off to other places.  I’d suggest having either a branch terminus or a large industry in front of the storage loops (rather than a second mainline station), partly to justify the engine shed / turntable at the bigger junction station.  I’d want to be able to leave one train running on one of the mainlines while I shunt the goods yard or the branch line: as has been noted elsewhere, you can only control one train at a time.  You also only need one junction, not two, which saves space.
 

It’s not a radical or challenging concept, so it may not be what emerges in the end, but I think it has the following advantages:

 

1.  It’s buildable and should fit in the space: as this is a ‘first and last’ project, something that can get trains running before too long may be good.  The baseboards are already there.

2.  It’s suitably generic that a fictitious layout can still aim for the high score on realism (ie: turn a potential weak point into an advantage).
3.  I’ve tried to give a rationale for the Engine Shed and Turntable - which might be one area where the outcome is a bit larger than actually needed. 
4.  It can be developed later, including with additional levels off a second junction (this may need some reworking of the baseboards, so personally I’d put it off for now - but keep hold of the idea).  

5.  It hopefully doesn’t overcrowd the space - leaving room for the tunnels.

 

Just some thoughts.  I think you may have seen @Harlequin’s layout gallery already - an excellent variety of designs covering a wide range of layout types.  Definitely worth browsing - does something catch your eye?  I’ve also seen some of @Chimer’s designs in threads on this Forum, and they seem to work really well for this kind of space.  Keith.

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

  • RMweb Premium

Ok, what would I do with the layout in the latest plan? The following occurred to me while washing up...

 

- I would set it in an industrial region - ex-GCR in South Yorkshire, say, which would fit with the island platforms (and see the original Borchester for how atmospheric subway access to an island can be);

 

- but with running powers for the Midland and Lanky of course;

 

- I would add crossovers either end of the bottom station, with a single (not double) slip at the left hand end giving access to the mpd;

 

- I would add two or three carriage sidings with cleaning platforms between the running line and the shed loop (depending on what space would allow);

 

- I would add a trailing crossover on the lifting section, to allow access to the 'hidden' sidings from the inner circuit; I would increase the number of sidings by as many as space allowed and add a trap one end and a headshunt the other;  the sidings would become a marshalling yard in full view;

 

- I would make the yard on the inside of the top station into a small local goods yard with at least one private siding for play value, but it would need to shrink a bit to allow for the marshalling yard;

 

- goods trains would be easy, starting and terminating in the marshalling yard; there would be stopping goods and trips to serve the station goods yard, industry and mpd (coal, ash, parts etc);

 

- local passenger would be easy, starting at the bottom station with stock from the carriage sidings and possibly reversing at the upper station;

 

- long distance and express passenger and parcels would be more tricky as there is no main station for them to originate or terminate at;  however they could start in the carriage sidings at the bottom station as empty stock and after a circuit or two the signalman could pull the 'shazzam!' lever to convert them into service trains; at the end of their run, replacing the same lever would convert them back to empty stock for return to the sidings;

 

- I would drool over the current and back catalogue of suitable GCR, MR, L&Y, LNER, LMS and BR Std locos (a surprising proportion of them from Bachmann as it happens) but still whine that no C13 is currently available.

 

 

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, Chimer said:

Regarding island platforms, in both cases you show a track between the platform and a "station building".   How passengers get from one to the other is an obvious issue. 

Micheldever on the Bournemouth line has a subway from the unconnected stain building to the platform. Though it's a rebuild of a more conventional arrangement.

 

It would also be quite a fun place to have a model of, if the oil terminal is in use. It's even got the tunnel mouth in a cliff cliché at one end.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

Looking at the photo from the OP, I’m not convinced the centre end baseboard (N4 - P6 on @Harlequin’s grid repeated below) looks 3’ deep (West - East):

 

On 10/06/2020 at 08:01, pgcroc said:

 

IMG_1866.JPG

Layout 10_6_20.JPG

 

The position of the hand tools and soldering iron, the shelves above, and looking at that board compared to the long boards either side, just makes me wonder: obviously that’s how it appears in the initial drawing, which @Harlequin‘s blank canvas follows.  I realise you’re not in a position to check, and it could be an optical illusion, but if that board is narrower, then I’d suggest it is a good thing that opens up possibilities by bringing the full width of that board and potentially the two corners as well into play.

 

If I’m wrong (not the first time, of course) then column P is - as shown in your opening sketch - really confined to scenery only, which is making the layout basically 1’ shorter.  The North and South ends of column O outside the curved running lines are also a long way from the operator.  Does it also put the shelves out of reach (plain baseboards can easily be leant on, scenery less so)? 
 

I would consider taking a saw to the centre baseboard to narrow it - I think the reach from Column M to the corners currently works out at something like 4’.  It might be a pain to do, but if that board is narrowed to 18” the reach into the corners (which is now from the middle of Column O) reduces to about 3’.  This is still a stretch, but you may not need to reach the whole way once scenery is in place (avoid tracks into the corners), and the shelves are also accessible again.

 

An 18” board can still accommodate up to 9 parallel tracks in OO gauge, and you may only need two or three - which could be in a (lift-off) tunnel anyway.
 

In other words - reduce that board width to 18” and you get the whole of Column P (8’ 10”) to use for a layout that is now 16’ down each side rather than (in effect) 15’.  A true case of less is more perhaps?  I presume the internal door and fridge-freezer mean the layout will never expand the other way, but as 16’ is nearly  1/4 mile in 1:76 scale it should be possible to do something good.
 

14 hours ago, Harlequin said:

Blank canvas:

pgcroc1.png.f80a6f02d27723cacc003be09dff0c38.png


PS: Note, I am terrible at woodwork, so to suggest cutting up boards is not something I do lightly.

 

PPS: I’m afraid the write-up in my paper on last night’s game wasn’t very positive - they have Brentford as clear favourites to go up.

Edited by Keith Addenbrooke
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

Hi All

Not disappointed very much with last night's game. We were lucky to be there at all. Now as Chimer says..........back to railways.

 

Firstly I have misled you a bit with the base board set up. Sorry Harlequin :wacko:. The RHS boards are 32" wide. Attached is the final drawing of the base boards.

I have carried over this error with the last few layout designs. I'm cracking up!

Note that board G is 16" x 26" at the moment but I thought to make it narrower 10" x 26" for ease of lifting. I have not actually done this yet.

Shows the problem of not being able to check things physically!

 

23 hours ago, Chimer said:

An island platform obviously moves the two tracks further apart than normal, and they need to come together again as soon as poss.  One way of doing this if you've got crossovers at both ends looks like this .... I've added a road and a station building to illustrate the other point too.

Chris, I actually started trying to put a second level on the layout at the top. I ran out of time to further explore this at home. Attached is a photo showing this on the north wall. If it worked I thought I could put a couple of storage tracks underneath the raised section.

 

21 hours ago, Flying Pig said:

I would set it in an industrial region - ex-GCR in South Yorkshire, say, which would fit with the island platforms (and see the original Borchester for how atmospheric subway access to an island can be);

Flying Pig. I have obviously forgotten to say that the layout will be GWR with a few interlopers hidden away for secret night time running.

 

1 hour ago, Keith Addenbrooke said:

Looking at the photo from the OP, I’m not convinced the centre end baseboard (N4 - P6 on @Harlequin’s grid repeated below) looks 3’ deep (West - East):

You are correct. It's 32" as below. You have excellent eyesight!

 

1 hour ago, Keith Addenbrooke said:

Does it also put the shelves out of reach (plain baseboards can easily be leant on, scenery less so)? 

I have liberated the kitchen steps and can 'easily' reach the cupboard. I put them up as they were 'spare'.

 

1 hour ago, Keith Addenbrooke said:

I would consider taking a saw to the centre baseboard to narrow it - I think the reach from Column M to the corners currently works out at something like 4’.

That would scare me. I was thinking of a prefabricated section of scenery for both East corners that I can plonk on and hopefully never touch again. 

 

I printed off Chimer's suggested layout when he posted it. The only reservation I had was there was only one set of platforms. I have seen a comment somewhere that a train should go from somewhere to somewhere else. Hence the second station which seemed logical.

 

The turntable can go anywhere.

 

I have started another iteration which I hope will be done by Saturday trying to take into account as many as the comments so far as possible. Forgive me if I miss any. I am sure you will point them out.

 

Cheers

Pete

 

ps: Just got an email from EasyJet saying my flight on the 17th is NOT cancelled so far. First one I have had like that!

 

Capture 7.JPG

IMG_1867.JPG

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
31 minutes ago, pgcroc said:

Flying Pig. I have obviously forgotten to say that the layout will be GWR with a few interlopers hidden away for secret night time running.

 

It would work just as well in a GWR guise - they had industry too.  The point was to find a way of running trains without necesarily needing hidden sidings, as you have most of the facilities needed already in the plan.  GWR would mean fewer interesting locos though, unless you could work in some of the South Wales constituents ;)

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
8 minutes ago, pgcroc said:

[snip]

I printed off Chimer's suggested layout when he posted it. The only reservation I had was there was only one set of platforms. I have seen a comment somewhere that a train should go from somewhere to somewhere else. Hence the second station which seemed logical.

[snip]

 

 

The operational logic is that passenger trains go from fiddle yard/storage sidings (Paddington) through the one (bottom) station (Reading) and back to the FY (now Bristol).  Then back the other way later.  I like the visible loop in front of the FY because, provided you suspend disbelief temporarily, trains can go round more than once if you want them to, to give you a better chance to admire them, plus giving you somewhere to fit in a biggish goods yard (effectively a goods FY as far as freight services passing through Reading are concerned).  Putting in the top station dents the logic a bit further In my warped brain, as your train might now be seen to go Paddington - Reading - Swindon - Reading - Bristol.  No problem if you wanted to stick platforms either side of the double track there, obviously, but I don't think it adds anything operationally.

 

In fact I liked the concept of the hidden but visible storage loops so much that I incorporated it in one of my own plans, which I put up for ridicule here .... https://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/156360-another-last-great-project/

 

That fits in 12' x 8', I'd kill for 16' x 9' to do it properly ...... @Harlequin suggested I put gradients in to that one too, which I'm working on - slowly .....

 

Incidentally, Phil, I don't understand your comment about getting at A7 - H9 from "the outside" - by which I assume you mean the space to the left between door and fridge?

 

Cheers, Chris

 

 

 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
3 minutes ago, Flying Pig said:

 

It would work just as well in a GWR guise - they had industry too.  The point was to find a way of running trains without necesarily needing hidden sidings, as you have most of the facilities needed already in the plan.  GWR would mean fewer interesting locos though, unless you could work in some of the South Wales constituents ;)

 

 

Just stop it now!! :jester: Though I do agree ....

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
16 hours ago, Chimer said:

 

The operational logic is that passenger trains go from fiddle yard/storage sidings (Paddington) through the one (bottom) station (Reading) and back to the FY (now Bristol).  Then back the other way later.  I like the visible loop in front of the FY because, provided you suspend disbelief temporarily, trains can go round more than once if you want them to, to give you a better chance to admire them, plus giving you somewhere to fit in a biggish goods yard (effectively a goods FY as far as freight services passing through Reading are concerned).  Putting in the top station dents the logic a bit further In my warped brain, as your train might now be seen to go Paddington - Reading - Swindon - Reading - Bristol.  No problem if you wanted to stick platforms either side of the double track there, obviously, but I don't think it adds anything operationally


Pete - @Chimer’s concept here seems to me like a great fit for your space and potentially your interests (based on your own sketches)?  The opening post did specify BR(W) steam - with a bit of diesel - though note @DavidCBroad‘s clarification on dates from page 1.  One thing I’ve either missed though or hasn’t been specified yet is your intended train length?  For a high score on realism train lengths will need to be appropriate to the type of layout, and some of the later GWR / BR(W) region passenger coaches from your chosen era could be quite long (up to 70’).  Lots of long trains cost lots of money, especially if you like the super-detailed rolling stock now available, but lots of layouts manage this with a surplus of locomotives that swap on and off a smaller number of trains (justifying the MPD and turntable you want).
 

If you’re able to give an indication of train length that will set another key parameter for the storage loops and platform lengths.

 

I’m interested in your photo showing a potential upper level.  Is it suggestion for a Terminus with the concourse end of the platforms in A1 and a single gradient down (and round) to the right?  That would work and could have storage sidings underneath.

 

If you want an ‘up and over’ I’d be wary of having a gradient on the lifting out section (it means the tracks have to align in three dimensions, not just two, so I don’t know if there’d be room to get high enough soon enough for the first piece of upper level on your picture - the one with the platform pieces on it).  A gentle gradient along one side to a high level across the East end and down on the other side should work.

 

Cogload Junction, anybody?

Edited by Keith Addenbrooke
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
2 hours ago, Keith Addenbrooke said:

One thing I’ve either missed or hasn’t been specified yet is your intended train length?

Hi Keith

I think around 70". Loco, tender and 5 carriages.

I will have to lengthen the platforms, although if train was only 4 carriages long it would not matter.

 

2 hours ago, Keith Addenbrooke said:

I’m interested in your photo showing a potential upper level, but I’d be wary of having a gradient on the lifting out section

I had calculated that if the terminus rail top was 5" above the baseboard and at a 2 degree gradient then the line would come to baseboard level in around 145" just before the bottom station. The storage tracks would have to move down a bit and the line would run between the green track and the edge of the baseboard. This line would have to be bi-directional with a runaround at a station to pull it back. OR, leave the storage tracks where they are, still come between the green line and the edge of the baseboard but the elevated line could not start until N1 and get to baseboard level until past the bottom station. Maybe I could set up an automatic shuttle?

 

2 hours ago, Keith Addenbrooke said:

Lots of long trains costs lots of money, especially if you like the super-detailed rolling stock now available, but lots of layouts manage this with a surplus of locomotives that swap on and off a smaller number of trains (justifying the MPD and turntable you want).

Not worried about super detailed coaches. I have an assortment of around 15 at the moment, Wrenn, Bachmann and Hornby, probably there are more lurking in boxes that are hidden 'somewhere'.

 

Cheers

Pete

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

I've been cogitating a high-level terminus on the South side with lines grading down to a double junction on the North side somewhere and double-track roundy on the main level.

So the terminus covers the main level roundy lines roughly where the tunnels are on the current plan. Storage loops would be underneath/behind the terminus partially accessible from the space outside the layout.

Another station in the double-track roundy on the North side, inside the gradient up to the terminus.

And maybe, maybe, a reversing loop crossing the operating well on a temporarily installed bridge board.

(Can you tell I've been looking at one of CJF's books of track plans?)

 

I haven't had time to draw anything yet, I'm afraid.

 

Too much?

 

(The problem with covering the storage loops on the North side is difficulty of access when things go wrong.)

 

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

  • RMweb Premium
25 minutes ago, pgcroc said:

Hi Keith

I think around 70". Loco, tender and 5 carriages.

I will have to lengthen the platforms, although if train was only 4 carriages long it would not matter.

 

I had calculated that if the terminus rail top was 5" above the baseboard and at a 2 degree gradient then the line would come to baseboard level in around 145" just before the bottom station. The storage tracks would have to move down a bit and the line would run between the green track and the edge of the baseboard. This line would have to be bi-directional with a runaround at a station to pull it back. OR, leave the storage tracks where they are, still come between the green line and the edge of the baseboard but the elevated line could not start until N1 and get to baseboard level until past the bottom station. Maybe I could set up an automatic shuttle?

 

Not worried about super detailed coaches. I have an assortment of around 15 at the moment, Wrenn, Bachmann and Hornby, probably there are more lurking in boxes that are hidden 'somewhere'.

 

Cheers

Pete


Good stuff - reminds me of one of my favourite all-time layout designs from a few years ago: double track continuous run mainline with passenger station and sidings on one side, storage loops on the other, with a gradient exactly as you suggest to an upper level with industrial sidings and an elevated MPD (with turntable).  Fantastic operating potential, and designed for one person operation.  It was published with a suggested daily timetable and remains the epitome of a dream layout for me.  Would fit here.

 

Just two catches for this conversation:

 

1.  It’s still under copyright so I can’t post the article here, but I’ll see if I get time to redraw it over the weekend.
 

2.  It’s for an American outline model railroad (it’s where most of my ideas start), but I think it can translate for UK use.

 

Some may question the idea of an elevated MPD, but the turntable you have sits on top of the baseboard so it can be done, and has been done before: a very famous early Model Railway (UK) called Maybank did exactly that.

 

Keith.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
5 minutes ago, Harlequin said:

I've been cogitating a high-level terminus on the South side with lines grading down to a double junction on the North side somewhere and double-track roundy on the main level.

So the terminus covers the main level roundy lines rouhgoly where the tunnels are on the current plan. Storage loops would be underneath/behind the terminus partially accessible from the space outside the layout.

Another station in the double-track roundy on the North side, inside the gradient up to the terminus.

And maybe, maybe, a reversing loop crossing the operating well on a temporarily installed bridge board.

(Can you tell I've been looking at one of CJF's books of track plans?)

 

I haven't had time to draw anything yet, I'm afraid.

 

Too much?

 

(The problem with covering the storage loops on the North side is difficulty of access when things go wrong.)

 


As Pete has specified 4 or 5 coach trains then a CJF-inspired design could well work very, very well in this space - there should be room to bring it bang up to date: 21st Century curves, point geometry and coach length (as discussed elsewhere of course).

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

Alternatively, for those train lengths - the storage loops could go on the short side on the right.  @BMcG's FY design (see the post below, click on "B McG replied to a topic") could have 3 feet cut out of its straight section and still have 8 of the 9 roads over 6 feet, with the longest just over 10 feet.  The curved pointwork will take 4 feet off the long sides, leaving 12 feet runs to play with scenically on either side.  And if there's a real wish for something at a higher level, you could have (e.g.) a DMU or autotrain or both doing automatic shuttles back and forth along a raised section roughly where you've shown Flying Scotsman (?) perched on a box.  Or a branch line terminus running to a separate FY if you wanted to be more ambitious.  Anything to avoid gradients .....

 

Personally, in this scenario I would probably make one side a fairly modest station, probably a junction, with a goods yard, and the other side trainspotting countryside, but you might prefer to have an MPD alongside the station and a big marshalling yard on the other side .....

 

Cheers, Chris

 

 

Edited by Chimer
Link to post
Share on other sites

With 4/5 coach trains there's no real need for a FY, and I'd  probably try to have some real railway features to operate properly. Carriage sidings, loco facilities, goods yard... Try to get it in a terminus to return loop arrangement, ideally with a continuous run.

 

Or build a station believably large that trains from both directions can terminate there. Leicester Central would be an example of that kind of thing. Then you could just have a continuous run.

  • Like 1
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...