PECO track plans

[Newmodeller96]

Hi all, 

 

Could anyone help me with this track plan. Does anyone know what PECO track would have been used to plan this? I have tried both st and sl codes but can’t seem to make it work. 
 

Thanks

H

[Pete the Elaner]

Seeing as there is a double slip involved, it must be streamline (SL). The straight & curved sections will therefore be flexible track.

Were you trying to re-create this plan with fixed curves?

[Rivercider]

Is that plan drawn for n gauge?

 

cheers

[The White Rabbit]

I think there is also an error the way the plan is drawn. Assuming this is OO gauge, a double slip should be about ten inches long (https://peco-uk.com/products/crossing-double-slip4) - the plan has it at c 15 inches. This may be cancelled out by the three way point to its right, which is shorter than it should be. I appreciate there may be other reasons, but this is unlikely to help you make it work. 

 

If you are happy to use pen and paper rather than drawing using online tools, then go to Peco's web-site, you can download a 1:1 plan of each type of point (via one of the tabs), print some and shuffle them about on a table. 

[PatB]

Looking at the grid scale, I'd be pretty certain it's an N gauge plan, so I'd expect it to use N Streamline. Printed plans often need a bit of juggling and tweaking to make them work in SCARM/Anyrail/Yourpreferredsoftware. 

[tynewydd]

Took a turn at it with XtrackCAD in OO.  Assuming the grid is 1 foot squares - track centers are 2.5" with platforms 4.5".   The track I used was streamline code 75.  The original might have used the symmetric  3-way, but I used the 3-way asymmetric. This adjusted the crossover points a bit, but the throat as designed still works.

 

Note that this design in the engine-hauled or steam-era will either need a pilot engine or a carriage siding off-scene for platforms other than the bottom two. And a turntable, of course, if the incoming engine needs to work out again. unless there are light-engine movements form. DMUs will work without. 

For MPD and other enhancements of a similar nature, Mallaig springs to mind. See

 

 

 

 

[tynewydd]

10 minutes ago, PatB said:

Looking at the grid scale, I'd be pretty certain it's an N gauge plan, so I'd expect it to use N Streamline. Printed plans often need a bit of juggling and tweaking to make them work in SCARM/Anyrail/Yourpreferredsoftware. 

 

You can obviously use the squares as 6" and N gauge instead.

[DCB]

It's not a great track plan, 2ft radius in OO through the 3 way and double slip. You could stretch the throat a bit and fit in 3ft radius. medium points.   The platforms seem a bit odd, short ones on the arrival side, I would lengthen the lower ones to at least as long as the upper ones, and then you have a station as large as Marylebone.  Or bigger than all but about 4 GWR termini. Makes you think.

 

[Rivercider]

2 hours ago, tynewydd said:

 

You can obviously use the squares as 6" and N gauge instead.

It straight away had the feel of an n gauge plan to me.

though I agree the squares could represent either 1' or 6". 

It is not clear how much more track and scenery is out of sight to the top.

in OO that will be quite a stretch,

 

cheers

 

Edited December 30, 2020 by Rivercider
clarification

[Flying Pig]

Of course, we have a curved approach here, so reverse curves in the throat can be avoided entirely.

 

 

 

[RobinofLoxley]

That is an odd plan, even without any indication what lies beyond. Whether its 6" squares on N or 1' on OO, the longest platforms exceed 7 feet. A train that long implies a substantial set of sidings or yard off the visible plan. If the siding at bottom right is really just a headhsunt, as implied by the point set-up bottom left, it doesn't need to be as long as that. I think that the row of houses is far too long, again restricting the track run at the bottom.

 

A terminus with 5 tracks allowing access to and from every platform is always going to be a complicated beast.

[Harlequin]

It's plan No. 43, "Electric Heaven", from the Peco "Compendium of Model Railway Track Plans".

 

It is OO. Size is 15ft 9in by 9ft 6in overall with a double-track circuit of the entire room and the part shown here is the high level terminus which sits 4 inches above a large hidden fiddle yard...

 

The idea is it can cope with Southern Region EMU sets ranging from 2 to 10 cars.

 

Edited December 30, 2020 by Harlequin

[tynewydd]

Quote

It's plan No. 43, "Electric Heaven", from the Peco "Compendium of Model Railway Track Plans".

I presume that "Heaven" is something like a port or a much bigger commuter city, because having that number of platform faces in use simultaneously with equipment that can simply reverse ends and leave again, means a lot of arrivals in a row (or departures one after another) otherwise they will nearly always be empty.  Such a pattern does suit a port aka H(e)aven  - which would have a tidal pattern coinciding with boats arriving and departing. 

It could be that the lower one or two platform faces are about parcels traffic, perhaps, while only the upper 3 or 4 are passenger from the time when the BR Parcels service commanded its own sections of stations. Those parcels might even still be loco hauled or even a DPU - which could haul other parcel stock and need to run-around. 

 

Southampton Terminus would have been such a station with a parcels/mail side, but it was omitted from electrification and closed instead.

Agree about the reverse curves being nice to remove, but that's not as important if there is not going to be shunting or propelling over them going on.  

 

Quote

The idea is it can cope with Southern Region EMU sets ranging from 2 to 10 cars.

10 cars will be a stretch for the longest two (7' platforms) in OO even if EMUs.