Jump to content
 

Modelling Network Southeast


Newmodeller96
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • RMweb Premium
4 hours ago, Newmodeller96 said:

Thank you for that! Where from your point of view would you put the cross over from the inside line to the station? 
 

also is there a rule about what would be the “up” or “down” line! 
 

thanks

 

I think you're using Streamline trackwork and can therefore include slip crossings, so I'd rearrange the bottom station and loco depot access like this (ignore the dimensions, it's just a rough sketch)

 

846108921_NSEgif.gif.0e0a3e7e3598f7fe2d89ce934292989e.gif

 

The crossing 1' in from the left is a single slip, so you can get from the inner line to the terminal platform straight across the diamond, and from the platform to the outer line using the slip route, but not from the outer line to the inner or vice versa.  You can get from the platform to the inner line, but you wouldn't 'cos you'd then be going the wrong way.  For locos travelling to/from the upper station, entry to the depot is from the inner line via the point at the right hand end (drive past and reverse in) and exit to the outer line over the diamond at 3' from the left.  So the flow of all traffic on the inner line is left to right, and on the outer line right to left.

 

You could replace the slip with two right hand points, but this uses more space and provides a route for the "facing" move between the two main lines which is generally considered to be a no-no as (amongst other things) it can lead to head-on collisions.  There are pages and pages of discussions on here about facing points ........

 

Generally, and always (?) in NetworkSouthEast land, the "up" line takes you towards London.  So thinking of the top station as the main terminus, "up" for you would likely be anti-clockwise on the inner circuit.

 

Hope this helps and doesn't confuse!

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

7 hours ago, Chimer said:

provides a route for the "facing" move between the two main lines which is generally considered to be a no-no as (amongst other things) it can lead to head-on collisions. 

 

This doesn’t really apply in the Network  Southeast era. By then the two separate points would be preferred over the slip. 

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

That would depend if the station had been updated since the steam era, wouldn't it? Semaphore survived in some NSE areas until well after privatisation (I think East Kent still has some, but I may be out of date), so old fashioned track layouts wouldn't be that shocking.

 

Plus the real railway will still use slips etc where lack of space demands.

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

The most pertinent comment in this thread was

 

On 07/01/2021 at 16:44, Flying Pig said:

Actually six threads, going over similar ground each time:

 

https://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/profile/40392-newmodeller96/content/&type=forums_topic&change_section=1

 

You really need to have a think about what you want and what you can actually achieve and try and reconcile the two in your mind, or you are just going to keep going round in circles.

 

You say that you have now constructed the boards, which is a good start. However as @Flying Pig says there are still some fundamental questions that you have not addressed:

 

What do you want to get out of this layout? The ability watch trains go past or the the desire to run a complicated timetable?  Will you have more than one operator available for running sessions? Without more than one operator and end to end layout is very hard to have more than one train moving at a time, unless there is some form of automatic operations. Which brings me to the next question DC or DCC? This is as important for the operation of points as for running trains? That raises the question of your budget. What stock and track do you already have?  With a Bachman 4 car  EMU's coming in at over £350 and Hornby Netwrokers selling for up to £150 this will not be a cheap project.

 

@Newmodeller96Please don't think I am trying to put you off but I speak from experience. I have spent many years in planning my dream layout and invested in the stock, DCC system and track to build it. Now that I am fully retired I have the time and space for a layout the size for yours. After considering the options above I have ended up with a simple branch line station, with passing loop. On reason is that I wanted a fully to scale station and even a small station and goods yard can me over 3 metres long.

 

My last point is the 2020 has taught us that we are not immortal. I am of an age where  this might be more important but what would happen to the layout is you move house or become unable to use it in the future? Can it be dismantled would it have to be chopped up? I have seen this more than a few times in that the preservation society I work with has been offered layouts in the past and we have never been able to extract a layout from its location intact.

  • Like 3
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, MyRule1 said:

The most pertinent comment in this thread was

 

 

You say that you have now constructed the boards, which is a good start. However as @Flying Pig says there are still some fundamental questions that you have not addressed:

 

What do you want to get out of this layout? The ability watch trains go past or the the desire to run a complicated timetable?  Will you have more than one operator available for running sessions? Without more than one operator and end to end layout is very hard to have more than one train moving at a time, unless there is some form of automatic operations. Which brings me to the next question DC or DCC? This is as important for the operation of points as for running trains? That raises the question of your budget. What stock and track do you already have?  With a Bachman 4 car  EMU's coming in at over £350 and Hornby Netwrokers selling for up to £150 this will not be a cheap project.

 

@Newmodeller96Please don't think I am trying to put you off but I speak from experience. I have spent many years in planning my dream layout and invested in the stock, DCC system and track to build it. Now that I am fully retired I have the time and space for a layout the size for yours. After considering the options above I have ended up with a simple branch line station, with passing loop. On reason is that I wanted a fully to scale station and even a small station and goods yard can me over 3 metres long.

 

My last point is the 2020 has taught us that we are not immortal. I am of an age where  this might be more important but what would happen to the layout is you move house or become unable to use it in the future? Can it be dismantled would it have to be chopped up? I have seen this more than a few times in that the preservation society I work with has been offered layouts in the past and we have never been able to extract a layout from its location intact.

Thank you for this @MyRule1

 

I guess the reason I haven’t answered about what I want from the layout is cause I still don’t 100% know! I guess a mixture of both continuous running (hence the addition of the loop track) but also the ability to run timetable-like movements!

 

I'm hoping once the current situation is over to get to know more people so we could operator with more than one, person. However for the time being it will just be me! 
 

I do have a Hornby select DCC system but am hoping to upgrade to the Roco Z21 or other system soon as I just can’t get on with the Select! In terms of rolling stock I have very little but I also am quite lucky that I do have funds regularly available to invest in new rolling stock so the prices on those models you mentioned doesn’t worry me too much - there definitely won’t be many of the bachmanns though!

 

I am thinking very clearly about the points of moving the layout, etc. Me and the mrs are planning a big extension in the next few years and with that the roof of the house will be removed so at that time it will need to be split up and stored so it has all been planned with that in mind. 
 

thanks again. H

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Another thing you could consider would be a station where trains terminate from both directions.

 

I think it changed with the HS1 services, but I'm sure Margate used to have 2 through platforms, plus one terminating platform facing Ramsgate and one facing Faversham. But even today it has the Ramsgate facing terminal platform, and two through platforms which can be used to reverse trains terminating from the Faversham direction.

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's what I mean...

newmod1.jpg.f49276f1bb9de07bd2e1b8288f7adf88.jpg

EMU sidings are outside the circuit at the bottom, and locos can be parked at the bottom inside the circuit.

 

The basics are that trains run from the sidings round to platforms 1/2/3, where they can either continue clockwise until they terminate there or simply ender service as an anticlockwise train at which point they would reverse, using the top left crossover and run anticlockwise until they terminate in platforms 4 or 5. They would then use the top right crossover to either run a clockwise service, or run round to the bottom, reversing on the main line into the sidings headshunt.

 

If the train needs to run an anticlockwise service first, then it either reverses on the main line, and runs to platform 4 via the inner circuit and the lower station or just reverses in 1/2/3. A train which terminates in 1/2/3 and needs to head to the yard would run via the inner circuit to the bottom station, and then shuffle across via the main line again.

 

The bottom station is just to provide another scene and somewhere for stopping trains to call, it performs no essential function, and the line below it is a headshunt rather than a platform line. For me there's enough on-scene storage that I wouldn't bother with any hidden sidings.

Edited by Zomboid
  • Like 2
  • Agree 2
  • Round of applause 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

hi all

 

I want to use flexitrack on curves to make them more realistic but I can’t use any rail, etc as I have a Mac and can’t use them on it. 
 

Is there any chance someone could plot some track onto a rough idea of my baseboard sizes so I can work out what tracksetta guides to buy? 
 

thanks

H

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

  • RMweb Premium
4 minutes ago, Newmodeller96 said:

hi all

 

I want to use flexitrack on curves to make them more realistic but I can’t use any rail, etc as I have a Mac and can’t use them on it. 
 

Is there any chance someone could plot some track onto a rough idea of my baseboard sizes so I can work out what tracksetta guides to buy? 
 

thanks

H

 

Bad plan, in my opinion.  Code 100 flexitrack curved to set-track radii (a) doesn't look any better and (b) it is very unlikely that you can lay it with a smooth curve, tracksetta or not.  It is especially likely to distort where you have to join two bits of flexi.  But if you insist, the centreline radii of the various curves are: R1 371mm (14 5/8"); R2 438mm (17 1/4"); R3 505mm (19 7/8"); R4 571.5mm (22 1/2").  15mm approx less if the tracksetta works on the inside edge of the sleepers ...

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

@Chimer thank you for the advice. I am happy not to use flexi track just seen advice that it made it look “smoother”.

 

My main issue is that I have mainly Hornby set track curves but I want to use PECO point work for the stations so need to work out how it will work. 
 

any tips on making set track look more realistic in the corners?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Flexible track can look smoother if the design allows it to, but with your space and requirements, wide sweeping curves aren't happening so you'll be better off with sectional track curves in terms of reliability, ease of laying and most likely appearance in the end.

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

SetTrack is based on 67mm track centres, but Streamline is 50mm. You either need to transition you curves down to 50mm centres,  or space the points to 67mm. Peco do a piece for this, ST202 or ST203. I think it is the latter, around 80mm long.

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

  • RMweb Gold

Well, in my limited and recently gained experience, I’d say that the track layout on an actual baseboard tends to take more space than the on-paper version. I note you haven’t used Anyrail (which I did) but don’t bank on creating space which doesn’t appear so on paper. How will passengers access the platforms of the lower station? Where’s the station building?

Are they slips or crossovers in the upper station? If the latter, there’s some pretty restricted movements. Eg, getting in/out of the second (from the top) platform road. 
I agree with earlier comments about sticking with settrack curves given the space you have, and how you wish to use it. To get the best out of flexitrack, and the possibility of sweeping curves, you’d need a lot less track on the board overall. Think about how to disguise settrack curves, with tunnels or view-blocking scenery or buildings.

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

Thanks @ITG the station building will be kind of hidden on the lower station and access will be from a large footbridge over the top of all the lines.

 

they are all double slips in all places that they are used. 
 

so the bottom left of the layout will be under a hill and I am working out how to disguise the top left. Top right will have station stuff around hopefully to disguise that section! 

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

Hi, I followed this and your previous thread with interest since it was started.

When I look on the latest version of your track plan I found some problems and you could easily simplify the the point work on the large station. The station approach looks impressive but are all the points and tracks really necessary?

southeast-original.jpg.df8ca9ab529bf3e1d67b5a95f4b6df14.jpg

 

  • The Settrack points look odd on the mainline in my eyes.
  • The track spacing between the 2 parallel lines is too small for running trains simultaneously on both tracks.
  • Is all the pointwork between the platforms and the shed really necessary? It has no advantages for operation.
  • The track spacing on the most upper tracks is too small.
  • I would avoid the 3-way point. The souble slips and 3-way points are not easy to operate in my eyes.
  • The spacing between the headshunt and the mainline (left curve) looks also very small (not marked in the plan). There could be not enough clearance between a train that runs on the mainline and a train or loco on the headshunt.
  • And finallaly: If you have no transition between the right curve (R3) and the straight track your outer platform would look simething like this:

southeast-platform.jpg.69c0e99d2b5a670e196671a5515128e5.jpg

I stumbled over this problem when I have build my platform.

 

To solve all this a have drawn an alternative simplified version of the station on your original plan:

southeast-plan.jpg.29e0ec3b1207b71a6e2c36af43f3b8c8.jpg

As you can see, the track lengths are identical. Now there is just one double slip.

Most of the track is still Settrack. There a just a few sections of flex track (red). I added also a transition on the right curve to solve the problem with the platform shape. As the removable section is not scenic there is no need to center the tracks on this board.

 

Alternatively there are 2 other variants of for the station approch. Version 1 with Settrack points and version 2 with a double slip and a medium point instead. But there are all more or less identical in length.

 

  • Agree 1
  • Interesting/Thought-provoking 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Fluo66 said:

Hi, I followed this and your previous thread with interest since it was started.

When I look on the latest version of your track plan I found some problems and you could easily simplify the the point work on the large station. The station approach looks impressive but are all the points and tracks really necessary?

southeast-original.jpg.df8ca9ab529bf3e1d67b5a95f4b6df14.jpg

 

  • The Settrack points look odd on the mainline in my eyes.
  • The track spacing between the 2 parallel lines is too small for running trains simultaneously on both tracks.
  • Is all the pointwork between the platforms and the shed really necessary? It has no advantages for operation.
  • The track spacing on the most upper tracks is too small.
  • I would avoid the 3-way point. The souble slips and 3-way points are not easy to operate in my eyes.
  • The spacing between the headshunt and the mainline (left curve) looks also very small (not marked in the plan). There could be not enough clearance between a train that runs on the mainline and a train or loco on the headshunt.
  • And finallaly: If you have no transition between the right curve (R3) and the straight track your outer platform would look simething like this:

southeast-platform.jpg.69c0e99d2b5a670e196671a5515128e5.jpg

I stumbled over this problem when I have build my platform.

 

To solve all this a have drawn an alternative simplified version of the station on your original plan:

southeast-plan.jpg.29e0ec3b1207b71a6e2c36af43f3b8c8.jpg

As you can see, the track lengths are identical. Now there is just one double slip.

Most of the track is still Settrack. There a just a few sections of flex track (red). I added also a transition on the right curve to solve the problem with the platform shape. As the removable section is not scenic there is no need to center the tracks on this board.

 

Alternatively there are 2 other variants of for the station approch. Version 1 with Settrack points and version 2 with a double slip and a medium point instead. But there are all more or less identical in length.

 

As it happens this is quite close to what I posted here a few days ago. But its correct that the second of the two crossing points leading to the station approache is redundant, and whatever slip is specified after the point, only a point is required instead. But the latest track plan further up by the OP is a big improvement.  OP, you might consider not having a platform on the through line, and restricting access to the platform between the through and terminus tracks to the terminus track only, and the last track where Fluo has marked spacing, you probably don't need either.  But the trackwork from the storage roads to the terminus do work, provided the correct combination of slips and points is included.

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

D7710295-7BBC-4A8E-913C-7DC3182CA0DD.jpeg.7c190ae3a05a99112d4d56548dd11d42.jpegWell here is the most recent update! 


I have removed that top track and agree it has tidied the whole space up! Tomorrow is my modelling time so will get a chance to lay some track out and get an idea to what it would feel like. 
 

thank you to all the help over the past months I’m excited by this outcome and can’t wait to start looking at scenic options and get building!

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

That's much better overall. Once you start to lay the track out, you will definitely get a better feel for things. In particular, it is all a bit horizontal and vertical. You might want to try experimenting with some different angles, such as for the EMU sidings maybe, just to break it up scenically?

  • Agree 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Mike Storey said:

That's much better overall. Once you start to lay the track out, you will definitely get a better feel for things. In particular, it is all a bit horizontal and vertical. You might want to try experimenting with some different angles, such as for the EMU sidings maybe, just to break it up scenically?

I totally agree Mike! I have been thinking turning some of it a bit!! 

  • Like 1
  • Friendly/supportive 1
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
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...