00 Fiddle Yard Design for scale length trains

[dan_the_v8man]

I'm designing my new layout and I'd like to accommodate some scale length trains (32 MRG + A Pair of 20's/Class 60) 

I've come up with a few ideas but all have their issues. I'd appreciate any ideas for rectifying them or improving them.

Happy to send the AnyRail files over.

 

My first Idea - nice and narrow, prototypical-ish track formation but doesn't quite accommodate the full length of the train (red rectangle) on any of the tracks. If I had a longer board, this would be my preferred design

 

 

Second idea - elongate it around the curves - now the sidings are plenty long enough but lacks the visual appeal of the first design to my eye (no trains snaking into sidings) and I suspect would be an absolute ball ache to lay the track for someone with a limited amount of experience such as myself, but from an operational perspective ticks the boxes

 

Third Idea - a hybrid of the first two, gives at least one siding that will hold a full length train at the expense of a reduction in length on the others, also rather wide, I was hoping to use the space infront of the more narrow designs for a TMD, branch line, industrial site etc 

 

 

 

Any constructive input appreciated - Thank you

[Flying Pig]

Why does appearance matter?  If it's offscene storage, it doesn't need to look like the prototype; it just needs to work.  If you want to make it scenic and even somewhat prototypical, then your design criteria are different.

 

Btw - how does the third plan end up so wide?

[dan_the_v8man]

4 minutes ago, Flying Pig said:

Why does appearance matter?  If it's offscene storage, it doesn't need to look like the prototype; it just needs to work.  If you want to make it scenic and even somewhat prototypical, then your design criteria are different.

 

Btw - how does the third plan end up so wide?

Because its a loft layout, its still very much in view and if I can make it look more marshalling yard like than fiddle yard its a bonus

The third designs width is dictated by the geometry of the points 

[Dagworth]

Consider the difference between these two plans, they both take up exactly the same space, use the same number of points and roughly the same quantity of track, the difference being that the lower one has all the roads the same length. 

 

 

Andi

[Dagworth]

Of your three designs, the middle one with the long roads and no snaking will run better for long trains. It also looks more pleasing to my eye. No reason the track should be any harder to lay for this that either of the others.

 

Andi

Edited October 18, 2020 by Dagworth

[Flying Pig]

6 minutes ago, dan_the_v8man said:

Because its a loft layout, its still very much in view and if I can make it look more marshalling yard like than fiddle yard its a bonus

 

Ok, then model it as a marshalling yard and make it scenic- it will certainly be more interesting to look at. Can you extend the approaches onto the boards either side? If you can then laying out the yard on a sweeping curve will look better.  This may eat into the space in front of the yard, but with the yard as. feature that may be less of an issue. 

[dan_the_v8man]

1 minute ago, Dagworth said:

Of your three designs, the middle one with the long roads and no snaking will run better for long trains. It also looks more pleasing to my eye. No reason the track should be any harder to lay for this that either of the others.

 

Andi

I've just created a 4th option thats more a hybrid of the 1st and 2nd design, I'd be interested to see what you think being as your preference is towards the 2nd design 

 

[dan_the_v8man]

1 minute ago, Flying Pig said:

 

Ok, then model it as a marshalling yard and make it scenic- it will certainly be more interesting to look at. Can you extend the approaches onto the boards either side? If you can then laying out the yard on a sweeping curve will look better.  This may eat into the space in front of the yard, but with the yard as. feature that may be less of an issue. 

I've got the area marked out in grey to play with, i'll have a play with the sweeping curve idea  

[DCB]

4th plan looks good.  I wouldn't like to tackle a derailment over the back though.    not sure about the angles, peco is 12.5 degrees, that looks more acute.  A couple of tweaks shown red would increase the train lengths by a coach in those roads.   A stub each end of the outer roads (green) allows one extra long train to be accommodated each way and  "sawed" driven into one stub and backed to the other to depart in  straight line.   I have one planned for my 2nd set of sidings in the loft, as backing tension lock couplers through reverse curves does not work reliably. There is no need for the curves to flow on two. They could all be the same radius, especially if you use some large radius set track, (30" radius not 19")    You just need a way to reverse trains or else you end up with half your trains always going clockwise and half anticlockwise, fine for coal trains/ coal empties but it does restrict things if reversing involves the hand of god approach

Edited October 19, 2020 by DavidCBroad

[Dagworth]

Fiddle yards on Ravensclyffe are one at each end of the mainline in the form of balloon loops, the upper yard that doesn't get MGRs (they go into the mine area) only has three roads whereas the lower has four. Not many roads but each one is long enough to hold two lots of 36HAAs plus locos or three ten-coach trains plus locos. The roads are traffic specific, so in the lower yard road 1 is MGRs only, road 2 is freight, 3 and 4 are passenger trains. Upper yard is 1 for freight and 2&3 for passenger. Lower yard also has four short stub roads that will hold a four car EMU or 5 short DMU cars, upper yard has a single stub road that can take two EMUs or 9 DMU cars. Because of the balloon loops trains do not need to be touched at all in normal use. It does need fairly constant moving up of trains in the yard after one has departed. I am planning to have the passenger and unit moves under computer control letting human drivers look after the more interesting freight stuff that goes into the yard/reception roads on the scenic area.

 

Andi

[sulzer27jd]

The choice designs between will be best determined by how you plan to use the trains stored in them but the key thing you don't show is how you will cross over between running lines. I would spend some time thinking about your operating sequence and what order you need trains and the type length that they are. If you plan around your longest sets (the MGRs?) how many sets will you have? what length will other trains be? Can you take the holding roads for your MGR out of the equation by separating them?

 

When I designed Balbeggie Sidings I only used a training cross-over at each end, that way trains that needed to reverse could return on the opposite line and those that worked in a continuous directions would be ready for their next run. The loaded and empty MGR trains used the 2 by-pass loops but could just as easily have used the two long centre roads. I didn't need every road to be the same length. By using a trailing cross-over every road in the fiddle yard could reach the left hand running line but I removed the need for a facing, double or a scissor cross-over, which reduced the length they took up.

 

The two short lines were for a DMU services that shuttles back and forth.

 

John

 

Edited October 19, 2020 by sulzer27jd

[Chimer]

I can't see why, if any of the roads on your third original plan are long enough, the same isn't true for the first plan.  The longest roads are the two centre roads, and their layout is the same on both plans.

 

Whatever, sticking with the first option, if the first points of the fans for the outer circuit is a Streamline long point using the last 12 degrees of the curve, and the one for the inner circuit is a curved point, you gain about a point's length on all roads .........

 

 

I've used 24" radius on the inner circuit, but that doesn't affect the saving.  Hope this helps!

 

[RobinofLoxley]

Personally I prefer the swept curves and curved points of the second design, probably because I used this strategy in my own loft to maximise the train length I could achieve.

 

However as has been pointed out, with as many as14 roads on some plans you wont be able to reach the farthest ones unless there is some access that we can't see on the plans. I just wonder if the nearest to the operator pair of sidings that are accessed through Y-points (on plan 2) are really necessary.

[Dungrange]

I don't really have the space to accommodate true scale length trains on my layout that is under construction, but I do like relatively long trains.  That has therefore pushed me to towards something similar to your second layout with the use of curved turnouts, which gives me a straight length that's approximately nine feet.  That will allow me to have at least some trains that would equate to your Class 60 with 32 MGR wagons, although in my case it will be a class 66 with around a dozen container flats (which is not as long as I'd like and it will only fit in a limited number of fiddle yard roads).  However, many lines will be unable to accommodate such long trains and since I only have space for 12 parallel tracks, some of my fiddle yards roads will have to be split to accomodate two shorter length trains.  Ultimately there has to be a balance between the number of trains that I can accommodate and their length.

 

18 hours ago, dan_the_v8man said:

Because its a loft layout, its still very much in view and if I can make it look more marshalling yard like than fiddle yard its a bonus

 

My own fiddle yard will be visible, but whilst I can appreciate a desire to make the track work look like a marshalling yard, will the trains sitting in the fiddle yard not destroy that illusion?  In my case, the fiddle yard will have to accommodate a mix of freight trains parked alongside a passenger charter service and several Diesel Multiple Units.  That's not the traffic mix of a typical marshalling yard.  Furthermore, looking at aerial photographs of marshalling yards there is usually a lot of empty track: most modellers tend to cram their fiddle yard full of as much stock as will fit.  Therefore the density of stock in a fiddle yard tends to be different to a typical marshalling yard.

 

My own fiddle yard will sadly not be large enough to accommodate all the rolling stock that I own.  As such, I'd go with the option that allows you to accommodate the largest number of trains. 

[Keith Addenbrooke]

I’ve only had a quick read through, so please forgive me if this has been suggested already, but this might be another variation to consider - there’s no reason both ends have to be the same (unless you want them to be), so putting one end on a curve and the other as a ladder gives @Dagworth’s even-length sidings and - I think - the potential for longer tracks?

 

(Sorry, photo no longer available)

 

Just a rough concept sketch, and I’ve only put in four tracks each way, but hopefully it explains the idea if it is of interest.

Edited October 7, 2022 by Keith Addenbrooke
Edited for text only as photo no longer available

[dan_the_v8man]

23 minutes ago, Keith Addenbrooke said:

I’ve only had a quick read through, so please forgive me if this has been suggested already, but this might be another variation to consider - there’s no reason both ends have to be the same (unless you want them to be), so putting one end on a curve and the other as a ladder gives @Dagworth’s even-length sidings and - I think - the potential for longer tracks?

 

Just a rough concept sketch, and I’ve only put in four tracks each way, but hopefully it explains the idea if it is of interest.

 

I like it 

[Keith Addenbrooke]

On 19/10/2020 at 21:29, dan_the_v8man said:

 

I like it 

Thanks Dan.

 

A further iteration which may or may not work, but which might be worth trying in Anyrail, could give the even-length @Dagworth sidings on the inner (anti-clockwise) circuit too, if it fits:

 

(Sorry, photo no longer available)

 

Looking at your original second idea, it suggests there may be space, but my little pencil doodle can’t calculate how this impacts the outer, clockwise ladder, so it may be a step too far.  Keith.

Edited October 7, 2022 by Keith Addenbrooke
Edited for text only as photo no longer available

[dan_the_v8man]

1 hour ago, Keith Addenbrooke said:

Thanks Dan.

 

A further iteration which may or may not work, but which might be worth trying in Anyrail, could give the even-length @Dagworth sidings on the inner (anti-clockwise) circuit too, if it fits:

 

 

Looking at your original second idea, it suggests there may be space, but my little pencil doodle can’t calculate how this impacts the outer, clockwise ladder, so it may be a step too far.  Keith.

I'll give it a go and upload the results! 

[roythebus]

If you're fed up trying to fit Peco geometry, give hand-building a go, it isn't as difficult as some make out.

[The Johnster]

It is, I’ve tried it and couldn’t master the turnouts.  Which were the main reason for trying it...

 

Don’t forget to leave a little room between your fy roads to enable you to get your hands in to remove or handle vehicles if needed. It may cost you a road or two, but it’s easier than clearing the roads each side of a derailed vehicle. 

[AndyID]

On 18/10/2020 at 15:10, Dagworth said:

Consider the difference between these two plans, they both take up exactly the same space, use the same number of points and roughly the same quantity of track, the difference being that the lower one has all the roads the same length. 

 

 

Andi

 

Another variation on that theme.