Jump to content

Recommended Posts

I'm starting to get a bit confused with it all now, so may leave any further re-hashes to those with more knowledge than me.

 

Regards the inserts of flex track attached to the double slip, they are 7.5 and 15cm, so not too fiddly really. The 15cm piece has a very slight curve, hardly noticeable at radius 1579cm although could probably be straightened if I had a tad more patience. I agree though that the different crossing angles do look a little odd. A nicely aligned set of tracks can be quite pleasing to the eye, especially to someone like me who thinks the world would be a much better place if everything was either horizontal, vertical or at a 45degree angle, all other angles being superfluous, but that's just me :rolleyes:

Link to post
Share on other sites

newbie2020-02.png.90c35f3fca53ebe530839829cded8904.png

 

With the 2 track return loop. The only flexible/ streamline track in this instance is in the return loop. I used Hornby diamonds because they maintain the geometry that the peco ones don't quite manage to (in anyrail at least).

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

Probably already discussed elsewhere, but the Hornby diamonds are 'handed' with the diagonal being something like 18cm while the horizontal is the same as both legs of a Peco diamond at 16.8cm. I wonder if that's always been the case, or did one or the other make a change somewhere along the line?

Link to post
Share on other sites

@Zomboid is there any way you can take a turnout off the reverse loop to create a bay platform on the through station. I don't know what angle turnouts are available but the smallest radius available might work?

Bi-directional running would be needed though for departing trains.  

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

It would be possible, but solving the wrong line running would be challenging.

 

If it was another 6' wider then I think that kind of thing would be pretty simple, but isn't that always the way in this hobby?

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Incidentally I'd suggest using Peco Setrack rather than Hornby, for three reasons:

 

1) The plastic frogs on the Peco points are finer than on Hornby, so it looks better and the locos are less likely to stall on them.

2) Peco is generally a little bit cheaper than Hornby.

3) Peco is made in the UK, so the money you spend on buying it stays in the UK economy.

  • Like 2
  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you all for your brilliant efforts! Starting to get over my head in places! I certainly don't mind any one rehashing or redesigning it - I've learned loads from this thread and hopefully anyone reading the thread with a similar size space they're tempted to use will be just as inspired.

 

Only remains to start actually doing something and make some real progress! As soon as I've got anything worth showing I'll get some pics uploaded showing its progression.

 

Now if only I could think of a name for my little station????

 

Clive

 

 

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

I would suggest that you decide on your intended track plan before starting to build anything.

 

So long as you've actually done that...

 

I think this is what I'm going for. There may be some changes made to the terminal station and goods area as it develops! I'm going with a little 'Fluidity' in the design!!

 

And, of course, I've started all this when there is a national shortage of Peco Track!!!!!

 

Layout4.7.JPG

Edited by Newbie2020
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • RMweb Gold
25 minutes ago, Newbie2020 said:

 

I think this is what I'm going for. There may be some changes made to the terminal station and goods area as it develops! I'm going with a little 'Fluidity' in the design!!

 

And, of course, I've started all this when there is a national shortage of Peco Track!!!!!

 

Layout4.7.JPG

 

Why does the double-track spacing vary so much?

Why does only one track pass through the tunnel? And how will you arrange the scenery to make sense?

What will the backdrop look like with the track so close to it?

Are you happy that to shunt the station you'll have to stop running on the outer circuit?

Have you noticed the horrible kink in the outer circuit?

Are you OK with trains running on the wrong road for a significant distance before they can take the reversing loop?

 

These are some of the questions that people were trying to address in their suggestions above.

 

  • Agree 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, OhOh said:

Probably already discussed elsewhere, but the Hornby diamonds are 'handed' with the diagonal being something like 18cm while the horizontal is the same as both legs of a Peco diamond at 16.8cm. I wonder if that's always been the case, or did one or the other make a change somewhere along the line?

 

Basically it's always been the same. When (the then) Triang-Hornby introduced the "System6" track 50+ years ago, they kept their "super4" track geometry which had always had LH/RH crossovers. When you look at the complexity of many other set track ranges in the US/Japan/Europe, the simplicity of the Triang Super4/System6 geometry has never been beaten.

When Peco introduced their SetTrack range 30ish years ago, they matched the Hornby geometry, but there were subtle variations, one of which was the diamond. I think the assumption is in most set track set ups there will be enough "wiggle" room to accommodate/absorb the gaps. Another subtle variation (presumably  to help accommodate/absorb the gaps) is their respective "quarter straights" are different lengths. 

 

Another difference in the ranges was the curved points. In the initial range, the Peco offering was  R1/R2  points, but after a few years they were dropped and replaced by R2/3 points, again there is subtle differences with the Hornby offering.

 

One point that was never brought over from the Super4 range was the R2 Y point, something I always thought had many uses, but obviously nobody else thinks so, lol!

I also think the big omission from both Peco and Hornby ranges is a LH and RH curved crossing that would preserve the R3 curve coming out of junctions, although I'll concede the geometry of such a curve would be complex.

 

Angus

 

  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Newbie2020 said:

And, of course, I've started all this when there is a national shortage of Peco Track!!!!!

Not a problem.

 

This design uses the very clever Trix system. It's not cheap track and has a moulded roadbed, so I'm sure it's anathema to many here, but it was fun to draw, and I reckon it'd be fun to operate too.

 

newbie2020-03trix.png.c010c71979785dc54096f81e48123893.png

 

Of course, your design is entirely achievable using the Hornby track too, if you can't wait for Peco to become available.

 

 

  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Harlequin said:

 

Why does the double-track spacing vary so much?

Why does only one track pass through the tunnel? And how will you arrange the scenery to make sense?

What will the backdrop look like with the track so close to it?

Are you happy that to shunt the station you'll have to stop running on the outer circuit?

Have you noticed the horrible kink in the outer circuit?

Are you OK with trains running on the wrong road for a significant distance before they can take the reversing loop?

 

These are some of the questions that people were trying to address in their suggestions above.

 

 

I see what you mean, I see @Zomboid last plan addresses most of these. I'll probably revisit this all again now I've found out I can't get all the track anyway!

 

My idea behind only one track through the tunnel was that I intended the inner track to be going through a 'cutting' with rock faces to the tunnel side, this also gives rise to the variiation in track separation between the outer and inner circuits, and probably some of the other geometry problems I've encountered.

 

Clive

  • Friendly/supportive 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Zomboid said:

Not a problem.

 

This design uses the very clever Trix system. It's not cheap track and has a moulded roadbed, so I'm sure it's anathema to many here, but it was fun to draw, and I reckon it'd be fun to operate too.

 

newbie2020-03trix.png.c010c71979785dc54096f81e48123893.png

 

Of course, your design is entirely achievable using the Hornby track too, if you can't wait for Peco to become available.

 

 

 

Quite like the idea of Peco to keep buying British, so I'm happy to wait (as long as its not too long!)

 

Never heard of Trix System - I'll google it.

 

Clive

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

I also think the big omission from both Peco and Hornby ranges is a LH and RH curved crossing that would preserve the R3 curve coming out of junctions, although I'll concede the geometry of such a curve would be complex.

 

Streamline would benefit from these too, to suitable radius.  I suspect they would be very tricky to mass produce however and prone to derailments if the alignments were not just so.

 

To go back to the layout plan, one feature that strikes me is that train lengths are very short - a large loco and a couple of Mk1s seems the limit.

Edited by Flying Pig
Ty0os
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Newbie2020 said:

I see what you mean, I see @Zomboid last plan addresses most of these. I'll probably revisit this all again now I've found out I can't get all the track anyway!

If you want any of the Anyrail files for the designs I've drawn then PM me and we'll find a way to share it. If you want to use them as a basis for modification or just build them as they are then you'll be able to find out what track sections I've actually used.

I have the full version, so the number of track sections isn't a concern for me, so if you're on the free one then there may be an issue.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, Flying Pig said:

 

Streamline would benefit from these too, to suitable radius.  I suspect they would be very tricky to mass produce however and prone to derailments if the alignments were not just so.

 

To go back to the layout plan, one feature that strikes me is that train lengths are very short - a large loco and a couple of Mk1s seems the limit.

 

I'm ok with the train length (for now!) With only 8 ft of main board to play with it would be difficult to get longer ones in with credible scene work (I think - sits back and waits for someone to prove me wrong!)

 

Clive

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Newbie2020 said:

 

I'm ok with the train length (for now!) With only 8 ft of main board to play with it would be difficult to get longer ones in with credible scene work (I think - sits back and waits for someone to prove me wrong!)

 

Clive

 

I think with a slightly simpler approach you could get up to a loco plus three, which improves the appearance of a train quite considerably in my view - see the pictures of @Keith Addenbrooke's layout on this thread

 

Your platform lengths are significantly constrained first by fitting a terminus onto the rather short extension and second by the return loop.  A basic double track circuit would probably allow at least one through station with longer platforms and more siding space for storing stock,and shunting.  Your extension would make a good location for a loco shed for example.

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • RMweb Gold

My suggestions would be:

  1. Use Streamline throughout (you can still use the SetTrack radii end curves.)
  2. Go for the single return loop
  3. Simplify down to a single track circuit - this will give you more room for scenery and for the top station to extend above the circuit as per many of the designs above.
  4. Expand out the bottom station to have a passing loop and maybe a bay platform.
  5. Create a long single line across the top connecting the top station to the circuit and connect all of the sidings to that lead line so you can shunt the station without affecting the circuit.
  6. Make sure there's some way for a loco to run round its train in the top station. (Or make sure a pilot loco can release arriving locos.)
  7. Splay your sidings at the top station - a row of exactly parallel sidings says "train set" and the splay should allow some sidings to be longer.
  8. Industry inside the left hand side of the circuit, lift-off access hatch, including tunnel scenery inside the right.
Edited by Harlequin
  • Like 1
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Newbie2020 said:

My idea behind only one track through the tunnel was that I intended the inner track to be going through a 'cutting' with rock faces to the tunnel side, this also gives rise to the variation in track separation between the outer and inner circuits, and probably some of the other geometry problems I've encountered.

 

I understand your rational, but unfortunately, it wont really work in practise with your plan as drawn.  Your top tunnel portal is shown on a section where you have standard double track centres.  That therefore means that as you move into the curve you only have a few millimetres of clearance between the end throw of whatever is on your inner circuit and the centre overhang of your longest bogie stock on the outside circuit.  There won't be enough space to fit a representation of a rock cutting.  If you really need the tunnel to be at that part of your layout, then it would be better to have a double track portal at the top of the plan and possibly two separate single track portals at the lower end.  If you want a short section of rock cutting, then it would be easier to achieve this by staggering the two tunnel portals so that in the bottom right corner of your plan, the outer track remains in tunnel until closer to the station, while the inner track emerges from the tunnel earlier and you'd then have cutting between the tunnel portal and the station at a location where your tracks are.   The issue is that you won't have a good view of the cutting from the front of the layout, but it would be possible to swap the tunnel portals, so that you have the tunnel portal for the inside track closer to the point for your return loop and the other roughly where you have shown it at the moment.  This would tend to make the right end of your through station look more like two single track lines rather than a double track section of track.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm reminded of a simple 5 x 3 (?) plan of CJF's in a 1960s version of his plans book. It was on the last page if anyone has a copy.

Basically a lower level with a single track continuous circuit and return loop cutting across top centre to lower right.  

20200813_202502.jpg.55ca9e591a09b80199dcf0130be18316.jpg

 

Off the continuous circuit at the front there was a branch line which ascended to a simple BLT which disguised the top third of the continuous circuit.

Now all that was done in a lot less space than is avaliable here. Even excluding the stub extension.

So long story short....by letting this basic scheme breathe a bit with more length and depth you could have a really interesting station and those all important tunnels etc.  

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, AndyB said:

I'm reminded of a simple 5 x 3 (?) plan of CJF's in a 1960s version of his plans book. It was on the last page if anyone has a copy.

Basically a lower level with a single track continuous circuit and return loop cutting across top centre to lower right.  

20200813_202502.jpg.55ca9e591a09b80199dcf0130be18316.jpg

 

Off the continuous circuit at the front there was a branch line which ascended to a simple BLT which disguised the top third of the continuous circuit.

Now all that was done in a lot less space than is avaliable here. Even excluding the stub extension.

So long story short....by letting this basic scheme breathe a bit with more length and depth you could have a really interesting station and those all important tunnels etc.  

 

 

I did look at this one from CJF but was put off by the second level for the BLT. In the space available that would seem like a pretty steep incline? Some of the incline articles I've read seem to infer that inclines high enough to cross over a rail line are only achievable with long straight runs?

 

CJF Layout.JPG

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

 

I understand your rational, but unfortunately, it wont really work in practise with your plan as drawn.  Your top tunnel portal is shown on a section where you have standard double track centres.  That therefore means that as you move into the curve you only have a few millimetres of clearance between the end throw of whatever is on your inner circuit and the centre overhang of your longest bogie stock on the outside circuit.  There won't be enough space to fit a representation of a rock cutting.  If you really need the tunnel to be at that part of your layout, then it would be better to have a double track portal at the top of the plan and possibly two separate single track portals at the lower end.  If you want a short section of rock cutting, then it would be easier to achieve this by staggering the two tunnel portals so that in the bottom right corner of your plan, the outer track remains in tunnel until closer to the station, while the inner track emerges from the tunnel earlier and you'd then have cutting between the tunnel portal and the station at a location where your tracks are.   The issue is that you won't have a good view of the cutting from the front of the layout, but it would be possible to swap the tunnel portals, so that you have the tunnel portal for the inside track closer to the point for your return loop and the other roughly where you have shown it at the moment.  This would tend to make the right end of your through station look more like two single track lines rather than a double track section of track.

 

Hmmm, I see your point. May be I'm being too ambitous for a first attempt! I like the idea of a double entry (!!) with staggered exits. I'll have a think about trying to achieve that.

 

 

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.