Jump to content

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, Newbie2020 said:

I think I've pushed as far as I can without buying her a puppy!!!!!!

 

What kind of puppy would she like is the question you really need to address.

 

Also take a look at some of Harlequin's previous designs; he has an album  on here which should gI've you some inspiration.

 

10 x 5 would be a very acceptable size for a layout and would almost tempt me back to OO. 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, AndyB said:

 

What kind of puppy would she like is the question you really need to address.

 

Also take a look at some of Harlequin's previous designs; he has an album  on here which should gI've you some inspiration.

 

10 x 5 would be a very acceptable size for a layout and would almost tempt me back to OO. 

 

 

It would have to be a labrador! I've been fighting this since we lost our last dog about 3 years ago! (loved it to bits but they are ohh so tying!) :)

 

  • Friendly/supportive 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Version 4.5

 

Having spoke to a few people and watched a few YouTubes I've decided DCC it is. In which case I can put the return loop back in without panicking about the wiring or stop start operation.

 

This version, therefore includes some of the good ideas provided by everyone and, of course, my Tunnel! ( I have dropped the idea of having a raised embankment to it though).

 

Having stared at this for best part of a day I think this offers good modelling opportunities, along with good, and somewhat realistic, "playability".

 

And all this with no divorce and no puppy! Result!

 

I'm thinking this is going to be my working plan (unless anyone shouts "stop - you can't do that!" ??) but as with all plans will probably be quite flexible throughout the build time.

Layout4.5.JPG

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Newbie2020 said:

I'm thinking this is going to be my working plan (unless anyone shouts "stop - you can't do that!" ??) but as with all plans will probably be quite flexible throughout the build time.

Layout4.5.JPG

 

If it provides what you are looking for - great.  I note that you effectively have two continuous run circuits, but that it won't be possible for you to run trains on both simultaneously because the two circuits are too close to one another in the top left of the plan to accommodate the entrance to your goods yard.  At the radii that you're using you really need at least 60 mm between your track centre lines.  I think that this is something that you should probably look at trying to address, even if that means you have to shorten the sidings by a few inches to get the geometry to work.

 

I can see how you'd operate a freight train between the goods yard and warehouse/industrial sidings, taking one of several routes between these start and end points.  A train can be stabled at either point.

 

However, I'm less sure that I understand your proposed passenger train operation.  Effectively there is no place for them to go, so they can only run round one or other of the ovals stopping at the station.  The issue is that there is nowhere to store these passenger trains other than leaving them sitting in the platform and of course if that's where you stable a passenger train, then it limits your options for the routing of a goods train.

 

Personally, I think I'd be tempted to get rid of the Loco Sheds (unless you plan to buy a lot of locomotives and not much else) and create a single platform terminus at this location.  You can then run a passenger train out and back from this location, which can stop at your through station as many times as you want, but you have somewhere to stable that train that doesn't get in the way of running on your continuous run circuits / return loop arrangement.

 

Given that I can't envisage the above plan being able to accommodate more than about three trains on the layout at the same time, the locomotive facilities seem a little excessive.  If you want locomotive stabling facilities, a single track up by where I've suggested a terminus could probably be accommodated and you could also probably add a small sub-shed in the bottom right corner if desired.

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

 

If it provides what you are looking for - great.  I note that you effectively have two continuous run circuits, but that it won't be possible for you to run trains on both simultaneously because the two circuits are too close to one another in the top left of the plan to accommodate the entrance to your goods yard.  At the radii that you're using you really need at least 60 mm between your track centre lines.  I think that this is something that you should probably look at trying to address, even if that means you have to shorten the sidings by a few inches to get the geometry to work.

 

I can see how you'd operate a freight train between the goods yard and warehouse/industrial sidings, taking one of several routes between these start and end points.  A train can be stabled at either point.

 

However, I'm less sure that I understand your proposed passenger train operation.  Effectively there is no place for them to go, so they can only run round one or other of the ovals stopping at the station.  The issue is that there is nowhere to store these passenger trains other than leaving them sitting in the platform and of course if that's where you stable a passenger train, then it limits your options for the routing of a goods train.

 

Personally, I think I'd be tempted to get rid of the Loco Sheds (unless you plan to buy a lot of locomotives and not much else) and create a single platform terminus at this location.  You can then run a passenger train out and back from this location, which can stop at your through station as many times as you want, but you have somewhere to stable that train that doesn't get in the way of running on your continuous run circuits / return loop arrangement.

 

Given that I can't envisage the above plan being able to accommodate more than about three trains on the layout at the same time, the locomotive facilities seem a little excessive.  If you want locomotive stabling facilities, a single track up by where I've suggested a terminus could probably be accommodated and you could also probably add a small sub-shed in the bottom right corner if desired.

Good Points!

 

Meant to fix the close geometry in the top left then forgot!

 

I think you're right about the Passenger route. I was fixated on getting the goods route sorted. So may well go back to the station platform at the top left instead of loco sheds.

 

Re-jigged the industrial area sidings - to accommodate the revised geometry - but think that may need more thought tomorrow.

 

Clive

 

Layout4.6.JPG

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Newbie2020 said:

Meant to fix the close geometry in the top left then forgot!

Layout4.6.JPG

 

That looks marginally better, but I still don't think you have the required clearances between your two continuous runs at the entry to your goods yard.  The parallel tracks at the top where you have your facing a trailing crossovers are presumably standard set-track clearances (67 mm) and you need to maintain this spacing all the way around your curves otherwise the end throw of a locomotive on the inner circuit is likely to hit the centre of a coach on the outer track.  Whilst there may be scope to reduce the spacing by a few millimetres depending on the stock you plan on using, it still looks a bit tight, so make sure to check when you start track laying.

 

Your return loop now means that your access area will have to shift to the right, so whilst that can still fit, check that it will still allow you to reach everywhere required.

 

With regards the new terminal station, this would be operated such that you need a locomotive sitting in one platform and you'd drive your train into the other platform.  You'd then use the locomotive to shunt the coaches to the other platform to release the inbound locomotive (ie it will perform the shunt release for your next inbound train.  If your rational for including two platforms was to have two passenger trains in the terminus station at the same time, then you'll need somewhere else to stable your shunt release locomotive.  You could do this by using one of the sidings in the goods yard for locomotive stabling, but ultimately it depends on whether your interest lies more to the shunting of goods stock or the running of passenger trains.

 

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Dungrange said:

 

That looks marginally better, but I still don't think you have the required clearances between your two continuous runs at the entry to your goods yard.  The parallel tracks at the top where you have your facing a trailing crossovers are presumably standard set-track clearances (67 mm) and you need to maintain this spacing all the way around your curves otherwise the end throw of a locomotive on the inner circuit is likely to hit the centre of a coach on the outer track.  Whilst there may be scope to reduce the spacing by a few millimetres depending on the stock you plan on using, it still looks a bit tight, so make sure to check when you start track laying.

 

Your return loop now means that your access area will have to shift to the right, so whilst that can still fit, check that it will still allow you to reach everywhere required.

 

With regards the new terminal station, this would be operated such that you need a locomotive sitting in one platform and you'd drive your train into the other platform.  You'd then use the locomotive to shunt the coaches to the other platform to release the inbound locomotive (ie it will perform the shunt release for your next inbound train.  If your rational for including two platforms was to have two passenger trains in the terminus station at the same time, then you'll need somewhere else to stable your shunt release locomotive.  You could do this by using one of the sidings in the goods yard for locomotive stabling, but ultimately it depends on whether your interest lies more to the shunting of goods stock or the running of passenger trains.

 

 

 

Version 4.7

 

Completely altered the geometry and yes it does look a lot better at that top left corner of the loop now. I've also improved the sidings into the Warehouse area too.

 

Clive

Layout4.7.JPG

Link to post
Share on other sites

So it may be time to start thinking about the scenery to disguise the roundy-roundy aspect of the plan.

 

Others may be able to suggest more imaginative ideas than me, but I'd suggest quite an extensive tunnel where you've marked it already. You might stagger the tunnel portals.

 

And also something like an over bridge and town diagonally opposite (to the LHS of the through station).

 

There's more interest in seeing trains disappear and reappear than in having them in view all the time.

 

Maybe have some view blockers in front of the double track north of your manhole cover. 

 

At the moment I get the feeling that the track may be flat all the way around and level with the baseboard; ideally try to avoid this and have some of the landscape below track level. It might be worth seeing if you could do a cut out to allow for a river or canal. Could your central industrial area be a quayside, perhaps?

 

You mentioned that this layout was to be steam age but as far as I recall you didn't state a preference for area of the country. Could this be a nice gritty northern mill town with glimpses of your trains between blackened mills, a la Tetley Mills. Or does your vision point to something else, like a suburban setting with semi-detached houses full of commuters....a la Frankland

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, AndyB said:

So it may be time to start thinking about the scenery to disguise the roundy-roundy aspect of the plan.

 

Others may be able to suggest more imaginative ideas than me, but I'd suggest quite an extensive tunnel where you've marked it already. You might stagger the tunnel portals.

 

And also something like an over bridge and town diagonally opposite (to the LHS of the through station).

 

There's more interest in seeing trains disappear and reappear than in having them in view all the time.

 

Maybe have some view blockers in front of the double track north of your manhole cover. 

 

At the moment I get the feeling that the track may be flat all the way around and level with the baseboard; ideally try to avoid this and have some of the landscape below track level. It might be worth seeing if you could do a cut out to allow for a river or canal. Could your central industrial area be a quayside, perhaps?

 

You mentioned that this layout was to be steam age but as far as I recall you didn't state a preference for area of the country. Could this be a nice gritty northern mill town with glimpses of your trains between blackened mills, a la Tetley Mills. Or does your vision point to something else, like a suburban setting with semi-detached houses full of commuters....a la Frankland

 

 

Being originally from Lancashire, the mill scene type perhaps leading out onto moorland on the right where the tunnels are would be the way to go for me I think. I can only dream that it will look anywhere near as good as the Tetley Mills layout!

 

I was thinking of putting a road in from the bottom left crossing the tracks (maybe a bridge?) dropping down into the car park and warehouse area this would give some height to the layout along with the hills. I like the idea of perhaps some buildings (or something) blocking the view of the run around at the top, as you say, to break up the roundy-roundy aspect.

 

Clive

 

 

Edited by Newbie2020
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Can I cheekily offer-up this version?

 

I think it has all your current elements, just rearranged a little. Outer circuit is r3, inner r2. I've used flex track in several places as I'm limited to 50 pieces, which is also why the mill/industry isn't shown.

 

This offers you the option of 2 x 30inch diameter operating wells, although the one on the right would seem superfluous really. The one on the left puts you handily within reach of the mill/industry sidings, which should make shunting easier and could be expanded as shown, although that reduces the scenic possibilities.

 

You also get a siding to store a pilot loco, which could, if you wanted, be extended further to the right to become a carriage siding.

 

Hope it's of interest.

 

Gra.  

 

 

rmwa.jpg

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

I think I'd be inclined to bring the reversing loop over on a diamond crossing at one end (to minimise wrong-line working) and I'm not sure all those crossovers are needed, but other than that, it looks good to me. Maybe a couple of extra multiple unit sidings along the back near the 'branch' junction....

 

(And I'd also be tempted to have a through station out on the oval somewhere, both for extra operational interest, and to give somewhere for a train to stop while other trains cross in/out of the terminus).

Edited by RJS1977
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's what I came up with...

newbie2020-01.png.c6a8513ff16d3bef4c71ab32186bdaaa.png

 

I reckon you're looking at 2 coach trains, maybe 3 with a small engine, but that's life on an 8x4.

 

The lower station could have the upper platform as a terminal for trains from the upper station, or it could be some kind of freight feature.

 

I reckon it would be fun to play on, at least.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, OhOh said:

Can I cheekily offer-up this version?

 

I think it has all your current elements, just rearranged a little. Outer circuit is r3, inner r2. I've used flex track in several places as I'm limited to 50 pieces, which is also why the mill/industry isn't shown.

 

This offers you the option of 2 x 30inch diameter operating wells, although the one on the right would seem superfluous really. The one on the left puts you handily within reach of the mill/industry sidings, which should make shunting easier and could be expanded as shown, although that reduces the scenic possibilities.

 

You also get a siding to store a pilot loco, which could, if you wanted, be extended further to the right to become a carriage siding.

 

Hope it's of interest.

 

Gra.  

 

 

rmwa.jpg

 

Looks good, except for the need for the trains to run wrong line for half a lap to reverse direction.  A diamond taking the reverse loop from the outer line to the inner would make operation a lot easier.

Screenshot (422).png

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh yes @RJS1977 and @DavidCBroad I see what you mean.

 

Here's the updated version, with a 2nd diamond for the return into the station, rather than going through 4 points. As well as doing away with the crossover at bottom left as you show, the top right one can also go.

 

I've been using Peco, but found that their ST250 diamond put the tracks slightly out of alignment whereas the Hornby R615's maintain the geometry.

 

Gra.

rmwb.jpg

Edited by OhOh
missed a word
Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, OhOh said:

Another tweak just to give a little extra room for the mill/industry.

 

 

 

 

 

rmwc.jpg

 

Would a double slip instead of a diamond crossing reduce pointwork onto the branch?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, AndyB said:

 

Would a double slip instead of a diamond crossing reduce pointwork onto the branch?

It'd need a bit of jiggling to incorporate into the setrack geometry. Might also (although I don't know much on this subject) complicate the electrics. To my mind, it'd be quite a bit of effort for not much gain.

 

Gra.

Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, OhOh said:

It'd need a bit of jiggling to incorporate into the setrack geometry. Might also (although I don't know much on this subject) complicate the electrics. To my mind, it'd be quite a bit of effort for not much gain.

 

Gra.

 

If you want to use a slip, you could solve the geometry problem by using Streamline points for all of the terminus and approaches, with a bit of flexi to maintain track separation between the two roundy lines.  Also I note you've got the extension board at the size the OP quoted in his first post and subsequently corrected - it's roughly a foot longer and six inches wider, which makes quite a difference to what you can do with the terminus.

 

Chris

  • Like 1
  • Agree 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Double slips.  I'm not sure it does complicate the electrics in DCC as you "only" need to use insulating rail joiners. 

You could of course argue for the era of the layout that the more complex pointwork at this junction is more prototypical, perhaps. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, RJS1977 said:

However I would expect that the "long" crossover (i.e. the one with the diamond crossing) should be to the left of the short one, rather than the other way round.

Haha, now that you mention it, it seems obvious :rolleyes:

 

However, now thanks to @Chimer and @AndyB I've updated it with the correct dimensions and swapped the diamond for a double slip.

 

Hope @Newbie2020 doesn't mind all this rehashing of the original plans.

 

Gra. 

rmwd.jpg

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Chimer said:

 

If you want to use a slip, you could solve the geometry problem by using Streamline points for all of the terminus and approaches, with a bit of flexi to maintain track separation between the two roundy lines.  Also I note you've got the extension board at the size the OP quoted in his first post and subsequently corrected - it's roughly a foot longer and six inches wider, which makes quite a difference to what you can do with the terminus.

 

Chris

Started before @OhOh 's  post above...

A streamline long diamond / single slip / Double slip is a lot longer than a set track diamond with a lot shallower angle and simply won't fit the space available for the return loop.   Streamline track spacing is also narrower so either tiny little bits of rail are needed to make up the difference or trains may hit each other on the curves. I have a pair of shorter Set track angle double slips somewhere but I can't remember what make or where I put them.

I would stay with either set track or streamline point geometry here not mix and match as I think the differing crossing angles will look a bit odd.

I think I have added the same tweak as @RJS1977  suggested in my doodle re positions of crossings.   It assumes set track diamonds not slips. I have added direction arrows and a possible cosmetic only double line at the top left junction.   I really like this concept.  With both access holes you could get some great viewing angles (Yellow arrows) . Now that is something a lot of very fine layouts fall down on IMHO.  Having an express roar past your ear 6" away is great  it's what I loved doing as a kid on my 2nd layout. and those access areas would be great places to watch trains from.

Screenshot (423).png

Edited by DavidCBroad
  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, OhOh said:

Haha, now that you mention it, it seems obvious :rolleyes:

 

However, now thanks to @Chimer and @AndyB I've updated it with the correct dimensions and swapped the diamond for a double slip.

 

Hope @Newbie2020 doesn't mind all this rehashing of the original plans.

 

Gra. 

rmwd.jpg

The diamond could be a single slip too, as the facing crossover that the second side of the slip provides isn't necessary as far as I can tell.

 

It is also possible to double the reverse loop (I've checked this in my anyrail) with the use of a bit of flexible track, if desired. I probably would if it were me building the layout.

  • Like 3
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.