Small loop and a shelf layout ideas

[Flying Pig]

3 hours ago, Zomboid said:

It's also very reminiscent of West Kirby on the Merseyrail network.

 

Only somewhat - there are a number of differences and yours is usefully more compact in this situation (West Kirby in model form here). Your version has appeared on RMweb before as a conventional double track throat (see here).

[Zomboid]

2 hours ago, Flying Pig said:

Your version has appeared on RMweb before as a conventional double track throat (see here).

I've seen that thread before, though it wasn't something I thought of whilst doodling. I'm claiming a subconscious rip off!

[OhOh]

.

Edited March 23, 2021 by OhOh

[Flying Pig]

On 06/10/2020 at 13:13, Zomboid said:

I've seen that thread before, though it wasn't something I thought of whilst doodling. I'm claiming a subconscious rip off!

 

Well, it's a plea, but it didn't help George Harrison much.

[Reg81]

 

7 hours ago, OhOh said:

Plan of the Month in the June 1963 Railway Modeller might be of some interest -

 

https://archive.org/details/RailwayModellerJune1963/page/n23/mode/2up

 

Ahhh, yes... hmmm, interesting...  very interesting... I thought I'd made my mind up on something along the lines of the layout that evolved above, but the continued failure of B+Q's timber saw means I haven't got the baseboard sorted yet and seeing this makes me wonder what would happen if I stretched things a bit - keep the 12 foot length, but make the fat bit narrower, no longer necessitating an access hatch, but longer - basically a 6x3 pan with a 6x1.5 handle. 

 

After precisely measuring the loft at last, I can actually go up to 12ft 11in long, but the last 11 inches has to be no more than about 10 inches wide (or it blocks an eave door), BUT extending the length along the whole of the loft wall, means the layout now reaches an alcove in the corner, which opens up the possibility of ending the scenic part of the layout with a bridge or tunnel mouth, leading to a bit of off-set space with just enough space for parking a short (2 carriage + loco train) . 

So as a hypothetical, I wondered what would happen if I adapted the sort of layout above to a different shape base. I get something that looks line this - looks a little less interesting at the moment, partly because I'm not sure what I could put in the loop yet, but it makes a longer straight loop station and the loop industry sidings a bit easier.

 

I see why people spend years planning layouts...

 

Edited October 12, 2020 by Reg81
better picture

[Keith Addenbrooke]

7 hours ago, Reg81 said:

 

 

Ahhh, yes... hmmm, interesting...  very interesting... I thought I'd made my mind up on something along the lines of the layout that evolved above, but the continued failure of B+Q's timber saw means I haven't got the baseboard sorted yet and seeing this makes me wonder what would happen if I stretched things a bit - keep the 12 foot length, but make the fat bit narrower, no longer necessitating an access hatch, but longer - basically a 6x3 pan with a 6x1.5 handle. 

 

After precisely measuring the loft at last, I can actually go up to 12ft 11in long, but the last 11 inches has to be no more than about 10 inches wide (or it blocks an eave door), BUT extending the length along the whole of the loft wall, means the layout now reaches an alcove in the corner, which opens up the possibility of ending the scenic part of the layout with a bridge or tunnel mouth, leading to a bit of off-set space with just enough space for parking a short (2 carriage + loco train) . 

So as a hypothetical, I wondered what would happen if I adapted the sort of layout above to a different shape base. I get something that looks line this - looks a little less interesting at the moment, partly because I'm not sure what I could put in the loop yet, but it makes a longer straight loop station and the loop industry sidings a bit easier.

 

I see why people spend years planning layouts...

 

Hi Reg, from a layout point of view I can see the attraction of the longer / thinner 6‘ x 3‘ pan, but I would be careful about having tracks needing a 3’ reach - any problems with the far point by the wall and they could be tricky to sort out: even from the Open Space side it is a 30” reach (according to that well known early layout planner, Pythagoras).

 

If I understood your loft space correctly, does the ceiling rise (diagonally ?) from either side of the layout, in which case is it a tight reach into the top left corner if stretching across the whole board?  I note that even the CJF plan referenced by @OhOh has a narrow access hole in the centre of the baseboard.  Some form of access, even if it is a lift-out scenic section for emergencies, might be wise.

 

At the terminus end, I like the idea of the track extension under a bridge into a kind of Fiddle Yard, but personally I’d be inclined to keep the tracks straight as coupling / uncoupling on Setrack curves can be a pain, especially with any traditional tension lock couplings. If you had two straight tracks long enough for a Peco Locolift you would have something functional in the space where you could swap locos (or coaches) out of sight, so I’d probably use the space in that way.  Keith.

[Zomboid]

The circuit gets very close to the edge of the boards, which is something you may find is less practical in real life than in Anyrail.

 

For my money, extending the circuit like that compromises the terminus a bit more than I'd be willing to do.

[Dungrange]

In my opinion, the plan above is a step backwards, but it depends on what you want most - a trainset (ie the oval part) or a model railway (ie a station that can be made to look and be operated reasonably prototypically).

 

Second radius curves have a radius of 438 mm (17 1/4"), which is measured to the centre line of the track.  That therefore means that the distance between the centrelines of the front straight on the oval and the rear straight is approximately 34 1/2".  You'll then have around 17 mm (3/4") from the centreline of the track to the edge of the sleeper both at the front and rear of the layout, which means that the edges of the sleepers will effectively be at the edge of the board (ie the edge of sleeper to edge of sleeper dimension is almost 36").  That could work (although I wouldn't advise it) for a layout where you have access all round, but not for a layout against a wall as you have no clearance for the swing of stock as it enters the curve.  Stock going along the rear straight will be almost rubbing against the wall.  A 36" wide baseboard is simply not wide enough to accommodate a continuous run and it's too wide to stretch across to deal with a derailment at the rear of the layout.  Personally, I wouldn't advocate taking the centre line of your track any closer than about 2" to the wall or edge of the baseboard, so I'd see a baseboard width of about 38" as the absolute minimum that you could get a second radius oval on.

 

Ultimately, any continuous run layout needs some form of access hatch in the centre unless access can be arranged from all (or at least both long) sides.

[Flying Pig]

1 hour ago, Dungrange said:

In my opinion, the plan above is a step backwards, but it depends on what you want most - a trainset (ie the oval part) or a model railway (ie a station that can be made to look and be operated reasonably prototypically).

 

I agree.  While I can see the attraction of a larger loop, in this case I think it unbalances the layout and doesn't compensate for the loss of @Zomboid's nice station designs.  The curved not-a-fiddleyard will probably be more of an annoyance than an advantage imo.

 

Theoretically, if I were to extend the loop, I would take one of the earlier plans and make the vertical axis longer, turning the layout into more of an equal L. This would keep the visual focus of the layout around an operator's position by the station, though it would mean a rethink of the loco sidings as the convenient corner they occupy would be lost.  Obviously, that isn't possible in the space you have.

 

[OhOh]

On 13/10/2020 at 00:33, Reg81 said:

I see why people spend years planning layouts..

 

Edited March 23, 2021 by OhOh

[Reg81]

I think everyone has a much better idea of practically operating this and the visual impact of changes than I do, because you're seeing things that I can't yet! This is actually really helpful in avoiding issues down the line. Thanks for all the advice, which is remarkably consistent in this case!

 

Back to the original plan I think. I might revisit the mini-fiddle yard idea, but I think it's going to require practical experimentation more than planning and is something I can think about later, if ever. 

 

13 minutes ago, OhOh said:

It seems you'd arrived at a plan you were happy with, so apologies if my posting has set you back any.

 

The only thing holding me back so far is B+Q - so no problem at all!

[Zomboid]

1 hour ago, Flying Pig said:

Theoretically, if I were to extend the loop, I would take one of the earlier plans and make the vertical axis longer, turning the layout into more of an equal L.

Whilst irrelevant here, an 8x4 with a separate 8x2 to form an L shape would allow a great layout for people who want a largeish train set oval and a "serious" model railway area, so long as trains don't need to be terribly long and the point is operating the trains rather than parading them round one after another (not much space for storage yards in my minds eye). Personally I'd have a wonderful time designing and playing with such a layout...

[OhOh]

.

Edited March 23, 2021 by OhOh

[Zomboid]

It does leave only 5' for the entire terminus, which will be be really rather restrictive if there's to be any operational interest to it.

[OhOh]

On 13/10/2020 at 19:13, Zomboid said:

It does leave only 5' for the entire terminus, which will be be really rather restrictive if there's to be any operational interest to it.

 

Edited March 23, 2021 by OhOh
Added text.

[Keith Addenbrooke]

2 hours ago, OhOh said:

Sorry, couldn't resist having a play around to see if the 1963 plan might be doable in 12x4ft.

 

Putting the upper level at 3inches gives gradients of 1 in 33 and 1 in 35. Puts the outer track rather close to the board edge though, and doesn't really leave much useful space on the 6x4 bit. Does give @Reg81 the rail over rail bridge you wanted though.

 

A bit of jiggling here and there would probably improve things, but does show it could (sort of) be done.

 

I’m taking this as an interesting aside (we’re not trying to make Reg’s task any more difficult?).  With that in mind, could I suggest a further iteration?  Rather than have the grey section flat, lower it to make the grey track elevation at the bridge under the black track -1”.  This means you can either have a 4” clearance, or a gentler gradient?  
 

The biggest problem is that locos in CJF’s days were built to tackle Snowdon (but might sound like they were running on a rack and pinion) whereas these days r-t-r locos are generally built to glide but not climb.

 

I have to be honest - while it may look feasible, I wouldn’t try and build it, sorry.  Keith.

[Dungrange]

19 hours ago, OhOh said:

Sorry, couldn't resist having a play around to see if the 1963 plan might be doable in 12x4ft.

 

Putting the upper level at 3inches gives gradients of 1 in 33 and 1 in 35. Puts the outer track rather close to the board edge though, and doesn't really leave much useful space on the 6x4 bit. Does give @Reg81 the rail over rail bridge you wanted though.

 

A bit of jiggling here and there would probably improve things, but does show it could (sort of) be done.

 

 

The problem with that as a plan is that you have R3 and R4 curves at standard set track track centres, but you are introducing a difference in the vertical elevation, which will require a carefully positioned vertical curved wall between the grey and green tracks.  The radius of that wall will need to be large enough to avoid the end throw of stock traversing the R3 (grey) track, but if the top of the wall extends above the level of the track on the R4 (green) track then the radius of the wall needs to be small enough to avoid the centre overhang of a coach on the R4 track.  I think it would be difficult to get the position of that wall correct and get it to look okay in a scenic sense.

 

However, all layouts are a compromise and it depends on what @Reg81 wants most from his railway.  Personally, I think my preference is the layout that @Zomboid posted on 2 October. 

 

With regards the new 'not quite a fiddle yard', I suspect it would be difficult to use this as a fiddle yard because it would be difficult to couple and uncouple stock on the curve, but since part of @Reg81's plan is to operate a DMU service, the terminus could be changed such that although most services would terminate at the modelled station (ie the loco hauled ones), a single track could continue under a bridge into this space which could store a DMU.  It would then be possible to operate an occasional through service in addition to those that terminate.

Edited October 14, 2020 by Dungrange

[Reg81]

Really interesting ideas further up, but I think I'm going with something similar to one of Zomboid's earlier layouts, as it's about as complicated as my beginner brain can get around! Probably one of the October 1st iterations that seem to have bit more space for scenery (plus I've widened the panhandle since then). 

 

2 hours ago, Dungrange said:

With regards the new 'not quite a fiddle yard', I suspect it would be difficult to use this as a fiddle yard because it would be difficult to couple and uncouple stock on the curve, but since part of @Reg81's plan is to operate a DMU service, the terminus could be changed such that although most services would terminate at the modelled station (ie the loco hauled ones), a single track could continue under a bridge into this space which could store a DMU.  It would then be possible to operate an occasional through service in addition to those that terminate.

 

I'd wondered about that - single line through on one platform, terminus on the other, very slightly different operating pattern to play with, plus it would fit with a country station that used to be busier in its heyday. 

 

[Zomboid]

If you want any of my anyrail files then drop me a PM and I can send them your way.

[OhOh]

On 13/10/2020 at 20:28, Keith Addenbrooke said:

I’m taking this as an interesting aside (we’re not trying to make Reg’s task any more difficult?).

 

Edited March 23, 2021 by OhOh

[Dungrange]

10 hours ago, Reg81 said:

I'd wondered about that - single line through on one platform, terminus on the other, very slightly different operating pattern to play with, plus it would fit with a country station that used to be busier in its heyday. 

 

Yes, that's the scenario that I was envisaging.  The goods facilities at the actual terminus further up the line have shut (you are modelling the post-Beeching era) and the passenger service frequency has been reduced to say three DMU services per day (morning, lunchtime and evening).  It's a section of the network under constant threat of closure.

 

However, the station that you are modelling is still a little busier and in addition to the through DMU services, there are a couple of additional passenger services (mid-morning and mid-afternoon) that are sometimes operated by a second DMU and sometimes loco hauled.  There is still a daily goods service, albeit the station is perhaps not as busy as in its heyday.  However, it's at least retained its rail services for now.

Edited October 14, 2020 by Dungrange

[Chimer]

That's a really nice scenario.  Probably wouldn't be worth losing 2 feet of scenic length for in most situations, but makes brilliant use of that little alcove.

[Reg81]

7 hours ago, OhOh said:

Absolutely that  Just a little fun exercise. And interesting to note that something that "works" in AnyRail may not do quite so well for real.

I am learning that! B+Q finally came through and now I've had a chance to actually put track onto board (albeit far from all of it), it's interesting the places things are tighter than I appreciated (e.g. around loop) but also there's more space in other areas than the plan really shows (it's actually quite a good length overall).

 

8 hours ago, Zomboid said:

If you want any of my anyrail files then drop me a PM and I can send them your way.

Thanks! I'll take you up on that once I've figured out exactly which layout I meant!

 

Right, now I need to buy a lot more points...

 

Cheers,

 

Reg81

 

 

[OhOh]

.

Edited March 23, 2021 by OhOh

[ColinK]

I’m not sure if its been mentioned, but instead of having one station on the right hand section, could you have two. One at a high level, one at baseboard level.  That might ease the gradients and give you trains that go from place to place. One could have a run round loop, the other requiring a fresh loco or station pilot, so they are different operationally.