Jump to content

Recommended Posts

  • RMweb Gold
24 minutes ago, Zomboid said:

It's a good start, I think. I would go a bit further in designing the future expansion, so that any connection points you provide will be in the right place.

Will have a think over the weekend Zomboid.

Cheers

Pete

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

Hi All

 

Attached is my latest track plan.

To get things moving I thought, as I said before, I would do the green and blue lines first.

I have redone the station throats as per Chimer. A little bit of jiggling might still be required due to 2 points being very close to baseboard bracings.

I put in a trailing point on the east side of the blue line for 'future' use.

Do you think that this is ok and worth doing?

 

Cheers

Pete

Chimer_KA1.JPG


Hi Pete. One thing I would suggest at this point is to lay out some tracks for the fiddleyard and check, double check and triple check that all 6 lines are long enough for trains to easily pass each other without side swiping when going through the long points, using your longest coaches and engines (I think we saw Flying Scotsman early on for example).  I would especially check tracks 5 and 6 (as marked here): they look to be the shortest.  I think they should be OK for 5 coach trains, and match the platforms in the station, but I did draw them to give as much scenic / tunnel space as possible, so wouldn’t want to have suggested an arrangement that will give you problems.
 

It also gives you a chance to get out some rolling stock and at least push some carriages around, so you can see how it might look.  
 

While in the garage, I’d also lay out some cardboard platforms and see how the station looks,  noting especially that it is quite parallel to the wall, and nearer the rear than the front of the baseboards (which gives more room for future sidings, but less room for background scenery).  I certainly like @Chimer’s suggestion for the arrangement of the station throats - I would happily go with it if it were me.

 

If you’re happy with it all, then have a look where the turntable might fit - there are several options but I found when I was sketching ideas that the Hornby turntable you have does have quite a large footprint.
 

Hope it helps, Keith.

Edited by Keith Addenbrooke
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • RMweb Gold
4 hours ago, Keith Addenbrooke said:

One thing I would suggest at this point is to lay out some tracks for the fiddleyard and check, double check and triple check that all 6 lines are long enough for trains to easily pass each other without side swiping when going through the long points, using your longest coaches and engines (I think we saw Flying Scotsman early on for example).  I would especially check tracks 5 and 6 (as marked here): they look to be the shortest.

Yes I will do this. Seen it on a few YouTube videos.

4 hours ago, Keith Addenbrooke said:

I’d also lay out some cardboard platforms and see how the station looks,

I intended to do this Keith.

4 hours ago, Keith Addenbrooke said:

Hornby turntable you have does have quite a large footprint.

The TT on my plan is a Peco one although the one I have is Hornby. I will compare sizes.

 

I have temporarily (?) put the TT in the top left hand corner. Leaves a bit more room in the middle sections.

Added a couple of low relief houses as well just to give an idea.

 

Awaiting Chimer's reaction :mellow:

 

Cheers

Pete

Chimer_KA2.JPG

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, pgcroc said:

Yes I will do this. Seen it on a few YouTube videos.

I intended to do this Keith.

The TT on my plan is a Peco one although the one I have is Hornby. I will compare sizes.

 

I have temporarily (?) put the TT in the top left hand corner. Leaves a bit more room in the middle sections.

Added a couple of low relief houses as well just to give an idea.

 

Awaiting Chimer's reaction :mellow:

 

Cheers

Pete

Chimer_KA2.JPG


Good stuff.  You’re already ahead of me - my task this afternoon has been giving the underside of my baseboards their second coat of paint!

 

I think what makes the Hornby Turntable quite so large is the rim around it for the track joiners: the best quoted overall dimension I can find appears to be 386 mm.  The Peco one appears to be 327mm (if the one in Scarm is the LK-55 76’ model).  As I’ve previously acknowledged I’m not the person to advise on MPD design, I’ll leave discussion on that to those who know more than me.  Keith.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • RMweb Gold
13 minutes ago, Keith Addenbrooke said:

 The Peco one appears to be 327mm (if the one in Scarm is the LK-55 76’ model).

Hi Keith

It is the Peco LK-55 according to SCARM. Your diameter is correct.

The Hornby one is 380 mm diameter to the edge of the rim and 440 mm end to end of the rail joiners.

A bit big.

I may, (probably), replace this and sell off the Hornby one.

 

Cheers

Pete

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, pgcroc said:

Awaiting Chimer's reaction :mellow:

 

 

Not quite sure how to take that ...... don't think I actually wield a veto, do I? :)

 

The turntable and the roads off it serve the purpose of giving you somewhere to keep locos handy to the station so you can change engines on trains which adds interest to operations.  And the trailing access from platform 1 breaks no rules.  In the real world of course you can't just leave steam engines standing around for hours between jobs the way you can with diesels, which is why they tend retire to sheds to have their ashes hauled etc., so the overall arrangement is a bit unlikely, but probably an acceptable compromise.  A proper shed with all the necessary facilities does take up a lot of space.

 

Going back to your previous post, the throat pointwork can be shuffled around as necessary to avoid baseboard timbers as long as the relationship between the key elements (the crossovers and junctions) doesn't change.  So the crossovers can slide further round the curves, or maybe angling the platforms a couple of degrees, or curving them, could make a difference (tracks rigidly parallel to baseboard edges is something many people like to avoid, see some of the early plan suggestions).

 

The only real-world functions I can see for that trailing point off the inner circuit down the right hand side performing are to lead to a lie-by siding (where a freight train backs in to clear the way for a faster train), some rail-served industry, or exchange sidings.  The space doesn't work for the lie-by (the siding needs to be long, and stay parallel to the main line which is about to vanish behind a wall).  The other ideas could work, but would be competing for space with the branch line if that comes round inside the main lines on that side.

 

It's your railway .....

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Chimer said:

In the real world of course you can't just leave steam engines standing around for hours between jobs the way you can with diesels, which is why they tend retire to sheds to have their ashes hauled etc., so the overall arrangement is a bit unlikely, but probably an acceptable compromise. 

 

Servicing facilities were not unusual at places where trains terminated - turning, watering, oiling and ash removal could all be done on a small site like this without the full facilities of a shed.  It does assume that trains terminate or change engines  at the station often enough to make the loco yard worthwhile though.  If that doesn't happen your locos will live offstage between trains.

 

Also, if I could be really picky, the loco yard layout could be better, as a lot of space is taken up by a long access line that needs to be kept clear and the amount of space for actually parking locos is limited.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • RMweb Gold
59 minutes ago, Chimer said:

Not quite sure how to take that ...... don't think I actually wield a veto, do I? :)

Only a lighthearted comment Chris. No offence intended :D

1 hour ago, Chimer said:

The only real-world functions I can see for that trailing point off the inner circuit down the right hand side performing are to lead to a lie-by siding (where a freight train backs in to clear the way for a faster train), some rail-served industry, or exchange sidings. 

I only put that point in in case I thought of 'something' to run back/to there. I have now deleted it.

 

There will be a shuffling around of the points at the west end of the platforms once I start laying the track.

I will be doing the storage area at the bottom first.

 

25 minutes ago, Flying Pig said:

Also, if I could be really picky, the loco yard layout could be better, as a lot of space is taken up by a long access line that needs to be kept clear and the amount of space for actually parking locos is limited.

True FP. I was just trying to move the TT out of the way and leave all the inner centre section open for 'other stuff'.

I've tried to put the TT at the top right but it does not work too well. I may have to consider putting it back inside the main lines together with the full Monty of shed, ash, coal etc.

 

Are we moving forward? I don't know, but the storage sidings at the bottom will be starting to go in next week. I have to move on or my grandkids will be building this !  :rolleyes:

 

Cheers

Pete

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • RMweb Gold
On 18/10/2020 at 11:44, Chimer said:

 

Not quite sure how to take that ...... don't think I actually wield a veto, do I? :)

 

The turntable and the roads off it serve the purpose of giving you somewhere to keep locos handy to the station so you can change engines on trains which adds interest to operations.  And the trailing access from platform 1 breaks no rules.  In the real world of course you can't just leave steam engines standing around for hours between jobs the way you can with diesels, which is why they tend retire to sheds to have their ashes hauled etc., so the overall arrangement is a bit unlikely, but probably an acceptable compromise.  A proper shed with all the necessary facilities does take up a lot of space.

 

Going back to your previous post, the throat pointwork can be shuffled around as necessary to avoid baseboard timbers as long as the relationship between the key elements (the crossovers and junctions) doesn't change.  So the crossovers can slide further round the curves, or maybe angling the platforms a couple of degrees, or curving them, could make a difference (tracks rigidly parallel to baseboard edges is something many people like to avoid, see some of the early plan suggestions).

 

The only real-world functions I can see for that trailing point off the inner circuit down the right hand side performing are to lead to a lie-by siding (where a freight train backs in to clear the way for a faster train), some rail-served industry, or exchange sidings.  The space doesn't work for the lie-by (the siding needs to be long, and stay parallel to the main line which is about to vanish behind a wall).  The other ideas could work, but would be competing for space with the branch line if that comes round inside the main lines on that side.

 

It's your railway .....

 

 

 

Actually, I think Pete needs a single voice advising him - to give the plan some coherence. 

(There are some things I would question about the current plan but I'm staying out of it - too many voices.)

 

On 18/10/2020 at 12:21, Flying Pig said:

 

Servicing facilities were not unusual at places where trains terminated - turning, watering, oiling and ash removal could all be done on a small site like this without the full facilities of a shed.  It does assume that trains terminate or change engines  at the station often enough to make the loco yard worthwhile though.  If that doesn't happen your locos will live offstage between trains.

 

Also, if I could be really picky, the loco yard layout could be better, as a lot of space is taken up by a long access line that needs to be kept clear and the amount of space for actually parking locos is limited.

 

 

GWR engine sheds seem to vary greatly in size, character, layout and relationship to stations. I think it's easy to justify one at this station that might have been provided originally for the branch loco and then crystallised and grew from that seed. Especially if you imagine there's some other infrastructure off scene nearby, such as maybe another branch a few miles further down the line.

 

The layout of the shed area should give locos from the main line quick access to coal and water. Then, further back, provide a small shed building with attached office (one or two roads), turntable, ash pit(s). The turntable is most commonly alongside the shed but may be opposing it. At small sheds, the turntable doesn't usually have any usable spurs off it, just a stub with buffer stop opposite the entry line. Larger sheds might have a few spurs. The coaling stage can be a simple one sided timber platform alongside a suitable track or might be double sided with a short siding behind it for unloading coal wagons. At larger sheds coaling arrangements were even more sophisticated but I think they would be out of character here. Maybe provide a siding to store coal wagons while they're not alongside the stage. The shed area must be trapped before it connects to any passenger lines, either with a simple trap point or a kickback siding that might have some other use.

Edited by Harlequin
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • RMweb Gold
1 hour ago, Harlequin said:

(There are some things I would question about the current plan but I'm staying out of it - too many voices.)

Now I am really worried Harlequin.

Pete

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • RMweb Gold
1 minute ago, pgcroc said:

Now I am really worried Harlequin.

Pete

 

No, don't worry. Different people do things different ways. I think Chimer is on your wavelength more than I am.

 

  • Friendly/supportive 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • RMweb Gold
8 minutes ago, pgcroc said:

I am now getting a bit dispirited! :sad_mini:

Pete

 

Oh dear, I hope that's not because of me! Please don't be dispirited.

 

Get something working and have some fun!

 

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • RMweb Gold
1 minute ago, Harlequin said:

Oh dear, I hope that's not because of me! Please don't be dispirited.

No it's not because of you Harlequin.

 

It's the not knowing things that get me. I cannot get a book out, look at a formula and solve a problem, if you see what I mean. 

As I said in my first post, I know nothing about the workings of railways. 

All my life I have lived by the mantra of 'I know what I don't know'.

If I did not know something, I would ask somebody. Not trying to bullsh!t my way through a problem, and I saw a lot of that!

 

I am sure I will get there someday.

Don't worry.

 

Cheers

Pete

  • Friendly/supportive 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • RMweb Gold
1 hour ago, pgcroc said:

No it's not because of you Harlequin.

 

It's the not knowing things that get me. I cannot get a book out, look at a formula and solve a problem, if you see what I mean. 

As I said in my first post, I know nothing about the workings of railways. 

All my life I have lived by the mantra of 'I know what I don't know'.

If I did not know something, I would ask somebody. Not trying to bullsh!t my way through a problem, and I saw a lot of that!

 

I am sure I will get there someday.

Don't worry.

 

Cheers

Pete

 

I understand the frustration.

 

How about changing tack and getting someone else to design the layout for you? That way the designer's knowledge could be harnessed to produce a design to your specification and with all the right bits in the right places (to paraphrase Eric Morecambe) that would get you up and running more quickly. 

 

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

If I am / ever was on Pete's wavelength, I think my design on 5th August ticked the most important boxes, if the main line is seen as running from fiddle yard to fiddle yard and the visible double track circuit just there for running extra laps and access to the marshalling yard (and I know its existence contradicts what I said last week about not being able to see anything going round and round).  Though if I did it again I would probably use the double-track fiddle yard design (as per the more recent plans) with crossovers at both ends to allow reversing.

 

But for now, I think Pete needs to get some track down temporarily (probably using set-track curves and changing the points by hand) and run some trains!!

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting read this afternoon.  Afraid I did rather commend both @Chimer and @Harlequin a while back:

 

On 29/07/2020 at 19:16, Keith Addenbrooke said:

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.

 

I know I enjoy the contributions from both, but I'd be inclined to agree with Phil for this particular project - Chris's ideas just seem to fit:

 

2 hours ago, Harlequin said:

 

No, don't worry. Different people do things different ways. I think Chimer is on your wavelength more than I am.

 

 

Right now, however, I think there is a consensus I'd want to join:

 

2 hours ago, Harlequin said:

Get something working and have some fun!

 

 

15 minutes ago, Chimer said:

But for now, I think Pete needs to get some track down temporarily (probably using set-track curves and changing the points by hand) and run some trains!!

 

Go have some fun with the trains for a bit would get my vote too.  Keith.

  • Like 2
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • RMweb Gold
1 hour ago, Harlequin said:

How about changing tack and getting someone else to design the layout for you?

I thought about that a long, long time ago Phil but decided I wanted to do my own, warts and all!

Think I am doing warts at the moment. It is easy (?) to fling money at it but it would not sit well with me.

By the way I have copied a bit for the TT etc from your 'GWR Terminus in WW2'. Would this be right for my layout?

 

54 minutes ago, Chimer said:

If I am / ever was on Pete's wavelength, I think my design on 5th August ticked the most important boxes

Yes Chris it was very good. I have no idea why I did not look at it more closely. Means a radical redraw though. I may have a go at it whilst finishing the first half of the baseboard, painting, bolting sections together and running the cables for the bus.

33 minutes ago, Keith Addenbrooke said:

I think you may have seen @Harlequin’s layout gallery already - an excellent variety of designs covering a wide range of layout types.

Keith, I have copied a bit - see above.

 

33 minutes ago, Keith Addenbrooke said:

Go have some fun with the trains for a bit would get my vote too.  Keith.

 

Working on it!

Thanks to all you guys for your help. I am truly grateful.

 

Cheers

Pete

Phil100.JPG

  • Agree 1
  • Friendly/supportive 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, pgcroc said:

As I said in my first post, I know nothing about the workings of railways. 

All my life I have lived by the mantra of 'I know what I don't know'.

If I did not know something, I would ask somebody.

Pete,

 

That's exactly why I chose to model an actual place. I got hold of a book of track plans for my chosen location (where I grew up) and used that as the basis of my layout. Effectively, the LMS and BR did my track layout drawing! Operationally, I know it works.

 

Ian

  • Agree 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
×
×
  • 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.