Early stages

[Keith Addenbrooke]

On 24/06/2020 at 10:43, Aire Head said:

 

You would be hard pressed to fit 1 station into the boards on the lower runs let alone 2 given the size of trains the OP wants to run.

 

He has space exactly 1 foot more than I have for my plan and I've only been able to fit the goods yard and had to leave the station offscene.

Good point, thank you.  I should have mentioned I’d see a station at the lower level as an Intermediate Station in this scheme, with shorter platforms for local / stopping trains only (as the OP includes some branch line style operation).  In this scheme some of the focus has shifted away from this part of the layout - the lower level is now more about mileage and watching trains.  Also, I was thinking of just one lower level station with two possible locations (I didn’t explain that either, sorry, I just left two vague “?”s): 

 

(Sorry, photos no longer available)
 

‘Station’ of course doesn’t have to mean a full set up with platforms and goods facilities of course, as your plan demonstrates very well with a similar footprint.  It would be possible to have the passenger operations focused on the Upper Station (Minories style) with a goods yard, industry or MPD on the lower level (a route for long goods trains to the upper fiddle yard would need some thought).  That would give a different feel to the layout again, so would count as an alternative idea really.

 

I probably should have explained that this Scheme is quite different to the one I described last night: 

 

(Sorry, photos no longer available)

Of course, if the space @Harlequin suggests could be available, I know I’d jump at the chance: it’d be an easier build, and yet also has the potential to really give the trains room to impress.

Edited October 6, 2022 by Keith Addenbrooke
Edited for text only as photos no longer available

[Zomboid]

4 hours ago, Aire Head said:

 

You would be hard pressed to fit 1 station into the boards on the lower runs let alone 2 given the size of trains the OP wants to run.

 

He has space exactly 1 foot more than I have for my plan and I've only been able to fit the goods yard and had to leave the station offscene.

It seems that the low level square but is the same size a yours, the areas allocated to FYs is additional.

 

Though your plan is still instructive about what'll fit in that space - you can do quite a lot, but nothing like the wish list at the start of the thread. A wayside freight yard is about the limit if a main line is to run on the lower level as a continuous run.

[simmo009]

18 hours ago, Harlequin said:

Like this?

 

Almost. From the top right corner of the room, at 1.4 metres, the wall kicks in at 45 degrees for 1.7 metres, the returns to the original orientation. There is another door in this wall too, already opens outwards. The pathway along these walls to the right gives access to the rest of the room.

[Keith Addenbrooke]

On 24/06/2020 at 17:23, simmo009 said:

 

Almost. From the top right corner of the room, at 1.4 metres, the wall kicks in at 45 degrees for 1.7 metres, the returns to the original orientation. There is another door in this wall too, already opens outwards. The pathway along these walls to the right gives access to the rest of the room.

Is it a bit like this?

 

(Sorry, photos no longer available)
 

If I’ve followed it right, the area previously shown as a dotted possible extension at the right hand end of the upper level looks like a high level duckunder across the access passageway to the rest of the room? (which would make sense as it is higher up).

 

As I’ve indicated on my sketch, my question is: can you slide the 1.4m x 0.6m board to the right to make a basic layout space 3.24m (East - West) x 3.0m (North - South)?  That’s the lower level ‘square’ before adding the Fiddle Yard extension on the North side and the Upper level overhang (300mm) on the South side.  (Personally, I’d see if you can do without the extra duckunder across the passageway - if I’ve understood it right - the trade off being the extra ‘core’ layout space, which is more useful).

 

In addition to the longer continuous run, it would also solve the problem of how to reach both ends of the Upper Level City Terminus at the same time.  
 

However - at this point I really would be thinking of a more spacious single level scheme with loop (not return loop) fiddle yard sidings, along the lines @Harlequin is suggesting (perhaps with a small upper level terminus above the fiddle yard as he suggests, for variety).

In my book it would be a much easier build (= quicker and less chance of frustration) and give your trains a more realistic space to run (= key to sustainable interest = longer lasting layout).  It’ll still be a job to fit everything you want in, but for an extra 80cm layout footprint, I think the potential for significant gains is worth considering seriously if you can arrange it.

 

Keith

 

[PS: This looks to be a really exciting project, and I look forwards to seeing more, but following the government announcement yesterday I’m needing to be picking up other things again, so will have to watch from a distance from this point - I also have two layouts to build!]
 

Edited October 6, 2022 by Keith Addenbrooke
Edited for text only as photos no longer available

[simmo009]

1 hour ago, Keith Addenbrooke said:

Is it a bit like this?

 

 

If I’ve followed it right, the area previously shown as a dotted possible extension at the right hand end of the upper level looks like a high level duckunder across the access passageway to the rest of the room? (which would make sense as it is higher up).

 

As I’ve indicated on my sketch, my question is: can you slide the 1.4m x 0.6m board to the right to make a basic layout space 3.24m (East - West) x 3.0m (North - South)?  That’s the lower level ‘square’ before adding the Fiddle Yard extension on the North side and the Upper level overhang (300mm) on the South side.  (Personally, I’d see if you can do without the extra duckunder across the passageway - if I’ve understood it right - the trade off being the extra ‘core’ layout space, which is more useful).

 

In addition to the longer continuous run, it would also solve the problem of how to reach both ends of the Upper Level City Terminus at the same time.  
 

However - at this point I really would be thinking of a more spacious single level scheme with loop (not return loop) fiddle yard sidings, along the lines @Harlequin is suggesting (perhaps with a small upper level terminus above the fiddle yard as he suggests, for variety).

In my book it would be a much easier build (= quicker and less chance of frustration) and give your trains a more realistic space to run (= key to sustainable interest = longer lasting layout).  It’ll still be a job to fit everything you want in, but for an extra 80cm layout footprint, I think the potential for significant gains is worth considering seriously if you can arrange it.

 

Keith

 

[PS: This looks to be a really exciting project, and I look forwards to seeing more, but following the government announcement yesterday I’m needing to be picking up other things again, so will have to watch from a distance from this point - I also have two layouts to build!]
 

Keith, yes, that board could move right, but perhaps not as far as you show.

 

Interestingly,  my thoughts prior to this was very much in line with Harlequin's alternative suggestion, although relative positions of items were a little different. I will stick these up shortly, just need to transfer from another device. The main reason for dropping this one was the perceived limited station, although I am sure I am missing a trick that would overcome this. You will see what I mean shortly I hope.

[simmo009]

As per previous post, see my prior design with less levels over a larger footprint. 

Scenic Area.pdf Fiddle Yard Plus.pdf

[Keith Addenbrooke]

On 24/06/2020 at 22:30, simmo009 said:

As per previous post, see my prior design with less levels over a larger footprint. 

Scenic Area.pdf 490.62 kB · 4 downloads Fiddle Yard Plus.pdf 361.51 kB · 4 downloads

 

Thanks for sharing these. 

 

[As I indicated yesterday, I'll be stepping back from RMweb more from now on - as I pick up other things again I'll be spending less time at home on-line, where I've been able to dip in and out very easily.  But just a quick comment if I may, mainly to note that these look to me to have loads of potential]:

 

The Fiddle Yard looks workable to me, with decent length sidings - there may be a few tweaks suggested to optimise your operating ideas and rolling stock (for example: add more for the Up lines, and perhaps some "reversible" sidings that can be accessed from or serve either direction).  There are plenty of folk who can advise on that to get the best for what you need. 

 

The station and siding area has plenty of space - the sidings do look to dart about a bit randomly at the moment.  A bit of tidying up however and I think this could meet a lot of your needs: a longer, thinner layout complements the express trains you want to run, and could make shunting look purposeful.

 

(Sorry, photos no longer available)
 

Taking the same basic concept you have, but adding loops alongside the running lines and taking the sidings off the inner loop could give longer sidings and a prototypical feel - this is just a sketch.   You could bring the platforms round to the loop area and have the sidings in front of a station: this might work better if you want a junction to a branch above the fiddle yard.  As you said yesterday, a lot like @Harlequin is suggesting, it all depends what you want to achieve and what look most realistic for your chosen region / era / type of line.

 

The key thing to bear in mind is that the more realistic and spacious your layout design, the better it makes the trains look (my own layout space and design is totally different, but with the help of the good folk on this Forum we worked through an option that uses the space to achieve the right look for the trains I want to run).

 

One small point: I think I had just 40mm more on the South side in my calculation yesterday (based on the original drawings I'd added the 800mm West side width to the 2440 Lower Level South Side length to get 3240 (or 3.24m), whereas this shows 3200.  Why mention it?  Just to remember to double check every measurement before committing to track laying, just in case...

_____________________

 

One final suggestion just in case it is of interest that gives an amazing length fiddle yard (using so-called staging loops) and still leaves 100% of your space for scenery:  for a layout with a central operating well, something that has been done on some layouts is to place a scenic divide all around the layout - I’m suggesting about 230mm in from the back edge.  This gives space for about 4 continuous loops to go all around the outside of the layout, using just one junction (I’ve drawn it in Anyrail):

 

(Sorry, photos no longer available)

The particular Junction design I've used here belongs to @Zomboid who designed it for use between two Minories-style terminus stations, but it will work here too.  It is drawn for use as a hidden junction, as I don't think the arrangement isn't based on a prototype - and there are facing points on the running lines at A.

 

There are compromises with this arrangement, as with any:

 

1.  The loops can be too long! (Solution: a second junction half way round with shorter loops)

2.  The layout can only be viewed from the inside (but with a big operating well this can be OK)

3.  Need to be able to reach over the Scenic Divide on occasions (some people use mirrors for visibility)

4.  Means the radius on scenic lines is a bit tighter, as they are all on the inside.

 

The trade off is you really do get 100% scenic length on the visible layout.  A more conventional approach is to have a double loop (a folded figure of 8) with one complete lap visible, and one hidden - this is often done using a second level with hidden sidings beneath the main layout, but this version avoids the need to access a second level, and there’s no need to build two levels or gradients.  Just a final thought.  Keith.

 

Edited October 6, 2022 by Keith Addenbrooke
Edited for text only as photos no longer available

[Harlequin]

So is the space available more like this?

 

Are the dimensions correct? (That's a 305mm grid, BTW.)

 

Your previous scheme looks more promising, I think, but I would investigate having the station in the top corner, as shown above. That would mean the backscene could curve panoramically around those walls and you would not need a true backscene along the room side, maybe just a low safety wall.

Then the layout would be more open to the room, get more light, be more sociable, be more on view to visitors. It would also be easier to reach across the baseboard ("fiddle yard loops" in my drawing) from the room side so it could be wider for extra storage capacity.

 

You might be able to find space for the high level branch line but it might be tricky. A layout on just that one level would be pretty impressive in itself, so maybe ask yourself if a branch line is really needed at all... You can still have the branch bay(s) in the station and run branch traffic in and out of it. Also exchange sidings for branch goods traffic - plenty of shunting required.

 

Edited June 25, 2020 by Harlequin

[Aire Head]

I'd argue you really don't need a branch line.

 

The additional traffic it would generate in reality would be a local passenger train and a pickup goods. Both of which are also a feature of most mainline stations anyway.

 

Like @Harlequin suggests you could have a bay platform at your station for a local service to terminate and depart from.

 

The space saved by not having a branch could allow for a larger goods yard meaning you still get the same amount of shunting and potentially more interesting shunting as you could fit a lineside industry with private sidings rather than just the usual Coal/Mileage/Good Shed/Cattle dock.

[Zomboid]

How many people are going to operate this layout? And what do you enjoy about model railways? Seems a silly question, but I think that needs to be clear before we go much further.

 

We've somewhat railroaded the OP from what would have been a 3 level, track everywhere probably a bit over-ambitious scheme towards something very different indeed.

[simmo009]

The intention is to have the mainline expresses and long goods to run, and/or more hands on operation of goods/branch workings. It can be single or multiple operated. I have a black Z21 with router, so phones can be used as individual throttles as visitors come to play / admire.

I intend to create a schedule of operations rather than a timetable, so the number of available operators will vary the recycle time.

As an example, there will be 4 rakes of Express carriages, but each will have an alternate locomotive to switch out.

[Zomboid]

So your want something that'll be fun to run on your own but with scope for more operators periodically.

 

And the idea that expresses and most freight would just trundle through wouldn't be an issue?

 

The direction of travel at the moment seems to be towards a smallish station on a main line, with possibly a branch junction, a local freight yard and possibly a rail connected industry (might be big enough to have it's own engine, which would be operationally fun). That's a long way from where we started, so is that concept going to tick enough of your boxes?

[simmo009]

That is a reasonable summation Zomboid. I am going to tinker with the track plan and see what the new perspective allows. Feel free to have a go yourself.

[Keith Addenbrooke]

As the original thread has been restored and the new one locked, I copied the .pdf of the new sketch into this thread so it’s all in one place - hope that’s OK.  Keith.

(Sorry, photo no longer available)
 

(Drawing by and copyright of simmo009)

Edited October 6, 2022 by Keith Addenbrooke
Edited for text only as photo no longer available

[The Stationmaster]

My only criticisms are -

1. What appears to be the use of a single slip to enter the goods yard at the bottom of the plan;  for two reasons.  Firstly I can;t see any value in having a facing entrance to a yard with dead end sidings, you can't shunt if the engine goes in first!  And secondly you shouldn't really have a facing slip connection like that in a relatively open stretch of running line.  Simply turn teh slip round and make a running line crossover in addition to the trailing connection into the yard.

 

2. A lack of trap points where the good s yard and the yard area on the other side join the running lines.  And where what looks like a siding (??) connects into the branch line in the top left corner.

 

But otherwise I think it's a pretty good plan - lots of shunting interest right in front of the operator while main line trains circulate and some call at the station with the branch platform to add to the interest.  None of it is over complicated so you've avoided one big trap in layout planning.  It might pay to lengthen your yard headshunt but otherwise your siding etc layout is very workable without falling into the trap of becoming twee.  If you liike to watch passing trains and enjoy shunting it looks like a good plan.

[DCB]

3 hours ago, Keith Addenbrooke said:

As the original thread has been restored and the new one locked, I copied the .pdf of the new sketch into this thread so it’s all in one place - hope that’s OK.  Keith.


(Drawing by and copyright of simmo009)

 

I couldn't open it.    Is this the one, I screenshot it ad changed it to PNG   (Drawing by and copyright of simmo009)

If so the tracks and station are too close to the wall for my liking and the goods yard roads are too convoluted and short to be practical

Edited July 24, 2020 by DavidCBroad

[Harlequin]

Two industries seems like going a bit too far. I would get rid of Ind 1. That would allow the shunting yard scene to be more visible and to spread out a bit if needed. Ind 2 is in a good position to use space that would otherwise be unoccupied and it could help block the view of the FY entrance.

The Branch bay and branch storage looks a bit cramped. You could have the bay without the actual branch, imagining that the branch junction is further up the main line somewhere. Or send the branch line across the lifting section and devote a corner of the FY to branch storage.

 

Edit: Just spotted "Ind 3", which again I think is over-egging the pudding. My suggestion would be make it part of the shunting yard but maybe give it some special purpose within that yard. Maybe a "cripple siding" or wagon repair shed???

 

Edited July 24, 2020 by Harlequin

[Keith Addenbrooke]

On 25/06/2020 at 08:34, Harlequin said:

So is the space available more like this?

 

Are the dimensions correct? (That's a 305mm grid, BTW.)

 

Your previous scheme looks more promising, I think, but I would investigate having the station in the top corner, as shown above. That would mean the backscene could curve panoramically around those walls and you would not need a true backscene along the room side, maybe just a low safety wall.

Then the layout would be more open to the room, get more light, be more sociable, be more on view to visitors. It would also be easier to reach across the baseboard ("fiddle yard loops" in my drawing) from the room side so it could be wider for extra storage capacity.

 

You might be able to find space for the high level branch line but it might be tricky. A layout on just that one level would be pretty impressive in itself, so maybe ask yourself if a branch line is really needed at all... You can still have the branch bay(s) in the station and run branch traffic in and out of it. Also exchange sidings for branch goods traffic - plenty of shunting required.

 

I’d forgotten about this one from earlier, apologies to @Harlequin.  Re-reading, it looks like @simmo009 has sketched out a decent starting point based on this.  I’d agree with @The Stationmaster’s suggestions to take it forwards - very promising.

[simmo009]

Anyway, my first crack at a layout design as follows. Your feedback is welcome.

Scenic Area.pdf

[The Stationmaster]

5 hours ago, Harlequin said:

Two industries seems like going a bit too far. I would get rid of Ind 1. That would allow the shunting yard scene to be more visible and to spread out a bit if needed. Ind 2 is in a good position to use space that would otherwise be unoccupied and it could help block the view of the FY entrance.

The Branch bay and branch storage looks a bit cramped. You could have the bay without the actual branch, imagining that the branch junction is further up the main line somewhere. Or send the branch line across the lifting section and devote a corner of the FY to branch storage.

 

Edit: Just spotted "Ind 3", which again I think is over-egging the pudding. My suggestion would be make it part of the shunting yard but maybe give it some special purpose within that yard. Maybe a "cripple siding" or wagon repair shed???

 

I don't think three 'industries' is necessarily over the top.  A lot depends on what they are but as a matter of interest but at one time both Three Counties and Arlesey on the GN mainline had three lots of private sidings albeit rather spread out at the latter and no doubt places with a greater degree of industrialisation could be just as busy.  And at least one of the 'industries' could well be a railway goods facility suchj as a full loads yard - no probem with it being separate from the  (goods) shed traffic as that happened in numerous places.  It all depends on the sort of area being modelled and what natural resources were there to encourage industrial development.

 

The sorting sidings have quite a lot of capacity as well which could be used in various ways both to suit the industries and for more general remarshalling.

[Harlequin]

6 hours ago, The Stationmaster said:

I don't think three 'industries' is necessarily over the top.  A lot depends on what they are but as a matter of interest but at one time both Three Counties and Arlesey on the GN mainline had three lots of private sidings albeit rather spread out at the latter and no doubt places with a greater degree of industrialisation could be just as busy.  And at least one of the 'industries' could well be a railway goods facility suchj as a full loads yard - no probem with it being separate from the  (goods) shed traffic as that happened in numerous places.  It all depends on the sort of area being modelled and what natural resources were there to encourage industrial development.

 

The sorting sidings have quite a lot of capacity as well which could be used in various ways both to suit the industries and for more general remarshalling.

 

The sorting sidings are great, although it might be better if they had a more direct relationship with the branch line.

 

I accept that multiple "industries" may be prototypically justifiable (based on your say-so alone, MIke!) but in terms of the visual composition of a model I feel that 3 sets of private sidings may be going too far. Especially when one industry would partially obscure the sorting sidings and the work being carried out in them.

 

I feel that one to two is about the right balance in the space available but that's just my suggestion. simmo009 might be able to make three work perfectly well for him.

 

Edited July 25, 2020 by Harlequin