Suggestions Sought for Hornby Trakmat Extension 4 Layout

[latestarter]

My 8x4ft baseboard is due to arrive tomorrow, after what seems like an eternity (I've been planning my first ever layout since April - it's now November) and it will be Trakmat Extension 4, in the Hornby Track Plans Book (2021). I've got everything I need for this extension and the full trakmat layout is assembled (on the floor). So, hopefully the extension section won't take too long. 

Among the learning curves I've been on is SCARM and I've 'assembled' the layout in that software too (see below). My issue(s) are these: 1) I'm not a fan of the open space in the middle of the trakmat layout and 2) I've decided not to use a turntable, as per the extension section. So, I'm seeking suggestions on what I could do instead (using track) in the 2 areas marked in blue on the SCARM image, please. 

Also, 3) SCARM is showing that the connection between an R8073 and R607 (shown by the red cross) won't work. The trakmat plan uses this connection and doesn't mention any issues. Your thoughts are welcome.

Please bear in mind when replying: A) I'm a complete novice, B) I am committed to this layout and baseboard size (it just fits and all the track is purchased). However, I can buy some extra track if needed. 3) My dad drove the shunter in my avatar, so I'd like an industrial area dedicated to him.

Thanks for any suggestions.
 

Edited November 2, 2021 by latestarter

[Ian Simpson]

Depends a bit on your period, but I think I'd go for a factory and perhaps a few surrounding houses in the left-hand area, and a goods yard (small goods shed, coal staithes, etc) on the right. Perhaps several little vignettes to give the impression that life is still going on away from the main line ...

Best of luck with the layout! Can't see why the red cross is there myself, I don't think there's any chance of a short circuit there.

Edited November 2, 2021 by Ian Simpson

[latestarter]

9 minutes ago, Ian Simpson said:

I think I'd go for houses in the left-hand area, and a goods yard (small goods shed, coal staithes, etc) on the right. Perhaps several little vignettes to give the impression that life is still going on away from the main line ...

Best of luck with the layout!

Thank you for that @Ian Simpson. I definitely think an industrial area and/or goods yard are essential as the shunter my dad drove took ore for copper cable from the mainline around a factory. I've been YouTubing ways to model a suitable ground cover for it, and I've got George Dent's 2nd book on weathering but no real ideas as yet.

As for houses, although I'm from a very urban part of the UK, I now live in the middle of nowhere surrounds by lakes and mountains, so I think too many houses would not be in keeping with this location. I also want to model a steam era mainly, other than the odd shunter. 

Edited November 2, 2021 by latestarter

[ITG]

I suspect the reason why the track doesn’t quite connect at your red X, is due to the fixed geometry of set track. In effect, you have two straight sections (ie the crossings) in that end of the outer circuit, that is not replicated at the other end. So the two ends are not symmetrical. That said, I would have thought that when you get to actually lay the track out, there’ll be enough give in it to allow the connection. If not, you may have to cut a small piece of track to bridge any gap that occurs. Or you could just buy a single metre of flexi track, and bend/cut it exactly to size around that whole end curve.

 

You don’t mention what material your board is made of, or if it will be permanently sited. But it may well require bracing to avoid any warping, with resultant uneven track and poor electrical connections.

I assume you have access around all four sides of the board, as, without a centre hole, you won’t be able to reach across it very effectively.

Good luck and have fun.

[ITG]

And in response to the question about the track layout in the area to the right, if that’s a goods yard (which seems a likely option), the way it’s laid out won’t help your shunting. The tight S bends of the crossover may not help when pushing wagons in. Maybe you could simplify that whole sidings area, and possible extend the length of them? Not sure what type of coupling/uncoupling device you’re using, but if a ramp or magnets etc, by the time you’ve sited it in a short siding, and allowing for clearance adjacent to the curve of the point, there’s not much length left.

 

Also, a question is - how many trains do you plan on running at the same time? I ask because you cannot shunt that yard area, without fouling the main line.

Edited November 2, 2021 by ITG

[latestarter]

16 minutes ago, ITG said:

I suspect the reason why the track doesn’t quite connect at your red X, is due to the fixed geometry of set track. In effect, you have two straight sections (ie the crossings) in that end of the outer circuit, that is not replicated at the other end. So the two ends are not symmetrical. That said, I would have thought that when you get to actually lay the track out, there’ll be enough give in it to allow the connection. If not, you may have to cut a small piece of track to bridge any gap that occurs. Or you could just buy a single metre of flexi track, and bend/cut it exactly to size around that whole end curve.

 

 

I was hoping it might be something that would have some' give' in real life, as Hornby don't mention it and it's definitely set track not flexi-tack. In fact the SCARM creator suggests (on his help page) that the software doesn't allow for a bit of pushing and pulling of set track. But I have also considered flexitrack - and if I use it, I'll no longer consider myself neophyte when it comes to modelling.

 

Quote

You don’t mention what material your board is made of, or if it will be permanently sited. But it may well require bracing to avoid any warping, with resultant uneven track and poor electrical connections. I assume you have access around all four sides of the board, as, without a centre hole, you won’t be able to reach across it very effectively.

Good luck and have fun.

It's a ready built baseboard on legs, made of 9mm 'furniture grade' MDF,  by the only company in Ireland that make such things full time (see photo). It's going to have its own room and there will be access all round. 

Thanks for all the advice @ITG - just seen your 2nd post, I'll give it a good read now. UPDATE: The only coupling 'device' I've bought so far is the Hornby railing and coupling track R620.

 

Edited November 2, 2021 by latestarter

[latestarter]

24 minutes ago, ITG said:

Also, a question is - how many trains do you plan on running at the same time? I ask because you cannot shunt that yard area, without fouling the main line.

 

So far I've got 3 locos; the tiny Hornby Ruston 48DS and flatbed shunter, a weathered Bachmann Ivatt with sound and the Hornby 60163 'Aberdonian' loco with 3 carriages. I also have about 6 wagons (weathered with local factories related to my dad's old job, which were very weird to find) and few old carriages and brake vans, etc, from eBay. 

Edited November 2, 2021 by latestarter

[ITG]

49 minutes ago, latestarter said:

 

So far I've got 3 locos; the tiny Hornby Ruston 48DS and flatbed shunter, a weathered Bachmann Ivatt with sound and the Hornby 60163 'Aberdonian' loco with 3 carriages. I also have about 6 wagons (weathered with local factories related to my dad's old job, which were very weird to find) and few old carriages and brake vans, etc, from eBay. 

It’s how many running at same time that is key. I have a twin track main line, with a branch terminus and goods yard. I often leave two trains circling on the main lines, and also either shunt the yard or run passenger trains to the branch. With DCC, it’s straightforward, providing the shunting etc can take place without fouling the main line (as on mine).

I think you’ve said on other threads you are DCC? If so, you could do similar, but you’d have to replan that bottom right corner.

[latestarter]

18 minutes ago, ITG said:

I have a twin track main line, with a branch terminus and goods yard. I often leave two trains circling on the main lines, and also either shunt the yard or run passenger trains to the branch. With DCC, it’s straightforward, providing the shunting etc can take place without fouling the main line (as on mine).

I think you’ve said on other threads you are DCC? If so, you could do similar, but you’d have to replan that bottom right corner.

What you outlined is something I have envisioned doing on my layout. However, I'm so inexperienced that I hadn't considered that shunting on the layout (as shown) would 'foul the mainline', or why. The track plans books says that this layout...@makes allowance for a terminus, goods shed, loco depot and coal stage'...(and)...'all these facilities provide extra capacity to improve the potential for general train movements'.

I assumed from the last sentence that it would be suitable for running mainline trains while shunting in the 'yard'. If you have time, I would welcome any thoughts on how I might re-plan the bottom right corner, as I can't see what needs to be done. Although it might come clearer once I start running trains.

[ITG]

Well, there’s more than one way to skin a cat! Let’s first explain the problem. We’ll call those 4 sidings in the bottom right ‘blue’ area, 1, 2,3 & 4, starting at the top. To shunt wagons in/out of 1, the loco has to pull back across both main lines. Similarly, to shunt 2 & 3, you can choose whether to keep straight - back across both main lines; or pull back across the crossover on to only the Outer main line. Siding 4 shunting will pull back onto the outer. So to shunt a train across those sidings, you would have to cross onto either/both of the main lines several times, thus halting any main line traffic.

You could consider running all these sidings off the siding X at the bottom, instead of the main line….NB. Photo has posted wrong way up! This way the goods train arriving clockwise on the outer line can pull in to X, and then shunt it’s own train in/out of the sidings. Or conversely, assemble a departing train.

but see next post as well.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited November 2, 2021 by ITG

[ITG]

Part 2….

you could extend that siding X to become a loop. Then a slow goods train could lay by in there, to allow faster train to pass. Plus, the shunting engine could run round it’s goods train if need be, if it was to depart in the opposite direction….but then it would need to pass to the inner circuit to travel anti-clockwise. And you only have a single crossover in the top left corner, so maybe you need an additional crossover in the lower part of the plan. Again, upside down.

Sorry to complicate things, but you did ask! And, to be clear, this is only my opinion, there are others, equally valid.

 

 

Edited November 2, 2021 by ITG

[latestarter]

@ITG This is very helpful indeed. I'll print it out, have a proper read and a think and when I've thunk hard, I'll come back to you.

Thanks again.

[Harlequin]

Hi latestarter,

 

The plan as it stands is very far from a real railway so one thing you could do is use the track parts but arranged in a completely different way to make something more realistic.

 

Remember that the “open space” you see on an unadorned track plan would not actually be empty on a real model. Areas without track are the scenery - the hills and fields, houses, churches, farmyards, roads and ponds that give the railway its atmosphere.

[latestarter]

13 hours ago, Harlequin said:

The plan as it stands is very far from a real railway so one thing you could do is use the track parts but arranged in a completely different way to make something more realistic.

 

Remember that the “open space” you see on an unadorned track plan would not actually be empty on a real model. Areas without track are the scenery - the hills and fields, houses, churches, farmyards, roads and ponds that give the railway its atmosphere.

Thanks for your reply. Unfortunately, I don't have the railway modelling 'nous' yet to know how it could be different. So I'm resigned to making the best of that track plan. But, as you point out, it's not like a real railway, and for me, lumping all the scenery in the middle is a bit too 'Toy Town' and smacks of a children's layout, which is why I started this thread, to be honest. I need to try and help it grow up a bit.

For example, I saw Pete Waterman on the Hornby TV series last night, saying that his huge 74ft layout for Chester Cathedral has no real scenery, as most real railway lines are just cut through fields.

Edited November 3, 2021 by latestarter

[The Johnster]

The Bachmann mogul and 'Aberdonian' infer a latish steam period, if you are bothered about what should run with what, and with this and your comment that you are amenable to extra track in mind, I'd like to suggest the following improvements (well, I think they are) to the Hornby set piece plan.  First, a bit of terminology to improve communication and establish general principles; you say you are a novice, so bear with me if any of this brings grannies and eggs to mind...

 

1) Normal UK practice is to 'drive on the left', so the outer continous circuit will run clockwise and the inner counter clockwise.  I'm going to call these 'up main' and 'down main' respectively for convenience.  These are your 'running lines', the rest are sidings. 

 

2)  A pair of turnouts (points) enabling trains to be diverted to the opposite running line (just to the left of the level crossing) is called a crossover, and is in your plan a 'facing' crossover.  In steam days they were very predominantly 'trailing' crossovers, which were cheaper to install and maintain because they did not need the facing point locks that are required to run passenger trains over them in the facing direction, also because in the early days unlocked facing points on fast lines were occasional causes of derailments. so trailing were preferred.  I would respectfully suggest changing this feature.

 

3) The double track junctions involving diamond crossings at the top and bottom left of the continuous up and down main circuits were a common arrangement where double running line junctions were needed.  But these are not main running line junctions, they are access to sidings, and much less likely.  Facing turnouts in general to access yards and sidings were unusual unless there was  a reception look (I'll come back to that), and goods trains pulled up on the running line and reversed, 'set back' into the sidings.  Running straight in through a facing turnout traps your locomotive with a train behind it, rendering it out of use until the train is shunted.  Looking at the top right and bottom right groups of sidings, one can see that they are awkwardly laid out and releasing trapped locomotives is problematic, as is the case with the down main circuit's inside the loop left hand sidings and the up main's bottom outside the loop siding.

 

4) Your dad's shunting engine is a privately owned industrial locomotive which is unlikely to be allowed to travel very far on the main line network and even then only if it registered and licensed to do so; it needs a field of operation of it's own away from the running lines.

 

5 How tall are you and how long are your arms?  If you are going to operate from a central well, then the corners are a long and difficult reach, and if you are operating from outside the board, you'll need access all round and it will be difficult to reach the centre.

 

 

In short, what we have here is a Hornby train set plan, rather than a 'proper' (term imprecisely defined) model railway on which the operator can replicate actual prototype practice.  None the worse for that but these plans tend to be devised to encourage complex trackwork with superfluous turnouts and diamonds which generates sales; they are, at least in part, marketing excersises.  This may not be important to you, especially given that your trains are going to be much shorter than any reasonable prototype length and accuracy is compromised anyway.  'Aberdonian' would normally haul 13 or 14 coach expresses or 60 wagon express perishable freight trains; your space is your space and very few of us can model such operations accurately.  Check out Tony Wright's 'Wright Writes' thread on Musings and Miscellanies and you will see what I mean.

 

Ok, here are my suggestions for what they are worth, with a view to your having satisfying operational potential and the layout working in a reasonably prototypical manner.

 

1) As the layout is at least in part an homage to your dad, build it to the Hornby trackplan as an industrial layout and don't use 'Aberdonian' or the Ivatt, goods brake vans, or the main line coaches.  All operations take place in the environment of an industrial privately owned network, with the 48DS, perhaps a W4 and a B2 Peckett, Hatton's Andrew Barclay, Bagnall diesel.  The set up could be a major heavy industrial process like a steelworks or heavy engineering factory where wagons of raw materials or part completed product have to be moved around the site by the locomotives and the empties returned whence they came, or perhaps an industrial park with the locomotives servicing several smaller factories, or perhaps a dockside or harbour setup, or any combination.  One could build a very realistic layout of this sort without changing the plan as is.  It could be an itneral colliery system with a joint washery fed from different screens and coal being transferred to coking ovens.

 

2) Some alterations as have already been suggested would bring the plan more into line with real mainline operating practice.  At this point I will introduce you to the concept of the 'headshunt', a spur of track at the outlet from a yard or group of sidings over which a shunting locomotive can haul wagons and propel them back into different sidings, 'roads' in the yard without running on to the main running lines.  You can, for example, leave 'Aberdonian' and the Ivatt running around the up and down mains as a backdrop to the main event, which is the shunting.

 

3) Moving the right hand sidings to the left of the right hand 180 degree curve of the up and down mains would enable you to extend their continuous circuit loops to the right, which would allow longer trains and a longer run, with less appearance of 'tail chasing'. 

 

4) In conjunction with this extension of the up and down mains, I would remove at least one if not both of the double junctions with diamond crossings.  As has been said, they are not really adding much to the operational potential and are in fact getting in the way of trains accessing the down main from the right hand yards.  I agree strongly with the idea of a loop or loops in which trains can be stored while other traffic passes them; one can be provided for the down main at one of the 180 degree ends.  You can now have up to 4 trains on your running lines as well as more in the sidings, so long as one of the trains has somewhere to go in order for you to replace it with one of the others.

 

5) Bearing in mind what I said about facing turnouts (of course, the ones into your loops are unavoidable). you can have a yard or group of sidings accessed from the down main by setting a train back into it by means of a trailing turnout and a diamond crossing over the up main, so down main shunting can take place outside the circuits; likewise, up main shunting can take place inside them. 

 

6) What we have not mentioned yet is a passenger station, and I would suggest that, if you are going to include one, it might best be located on the right hand 180 degree end as an island platform between the up and down mains.

 

Welcome to the insanity, I mean hobby!  I have suggested what I think are 'improvements' because they will not only increase realism but provide extra operational potential, and I love operating layouts!  Your own preferences might be more aligned to watching the trains going round, with which there is nothing wrong, and my views should be taken with this in mind; my ideas might not suit you at all, and I have no problem with that!  The purpose of a hobby is your own enjoyment, and I will now introduce to the most important thing in railway modelling, which is RULE 1.  Rule 1 states 'It's my train set, and I'll do whatever I want on it'.  Rules 2, 3, 4, &c state 'refer to Rule 1'  Advice and information is freely available here, though, not to mention a good deal of support and generosity of spirit, very occasionally marred by the odd spat.  I have been a professional railwayman and been modelling for very close to 60 years now, but I have learned a huge amount on this site; you've come to the right place!

 

There are no stupid questions except the ones you didn't ask, but we'll provide you with any amount of (sometimes stupid) answers!  And you will become one of us,

 

One of us, one of us...

 

[latestarter]

36 minutes ago, The Johnster said:

I'd like to suggest the following improvements (well, I think they are) to the Hornby set piece plan.  First, a bit of terminology to improve communication and establish general principles; you say you are a novice, so bear with me if any of this brings grannies and eggs to mind...

 

Thank you very much for your extremely comprehensive reply @The Johnster, which I have printed out to read tomorrow. Together with the reply from @ITG I have enough to keep me going for several coffees and even more slices of chocolate cake. I'll come back to you both then, if that's OK?

Just to mention a couple of things, quickly...I've inserted a photo of the baseboard I'm getting (hopefully in 2 or 3 days) above where I mention that it can stand in the middle of its dedicated 'train room'. I've already got shelves packed with rolling stock, Metcalfe kits, tools and others  jewels and the track for the extension section, which is in pieces. The trakmat layout is completed and on the floor, and has power throughout from a 4 amp transformer, through the Hornby Select controller (but I'll be getting it wired).

My dad's shunter was owned and operated by BICC (British Insulated Callender's Cables, Prescot Lancashire) and was used to bring ore for copper cables from the mainline throughout the factory. He worked with that train for about 30 years, and it retired before he did (after 40 years).

I was born 2 miles from Rainhill (as in Stephenson's Rocket at the trials) and lived and worked in that village for 12 years. So, all things considered, I'm probably halfway to being 'one of us', as railways were big part of my early life. However it's only now, in retirement, that I have time to think about them in 1:76 scale. I'm really looking forward to it.  

 

[Kris]

I've used the same points and crossings that you have on your first plan and the same size baseboard. There are fewer facing points and quite a lot of sidings. 

 

[latestarter]

26 minutes ago, Kris said:

I've used the same points and crossings that you have on your first plan and the same size baseboard. There are fewer facing points and quite a lot of sidings. 

 

Thanks for your time and trouble. It looks amazing and much more realistic  than mine.

[RJS1977]

I saw this thread just before I went out for the evening, and thought "I'll answer that when I get back" but I think ITG, Johnster and Kris have pretty much said I was going to. Kris's plan isn't quite what I was thinking, but it's a good plan.

 

Kris - I presume the two sidings making a Churchillian gesture towards the right of the plan are loco stabling sidings, as the proximity to the diamond crossing would make goods sidings there difficult to shunt?

 

Also, the second siding in the bottom left corner is going to be difficult to shunt without a run-round loop. I'd suggest it might be worth Latestarter getting a couple more points and connecting across the bottom of the plan to create a run-round there.

Edited November 2, 2021 by RJS1977

[The Johnster]

Much better.  4 locos working simultaneously, up and down main tailchasers and independent shunting action in outside and inside sidings.  Agree with RJS about the loops, giving you another 2 trains 'in play'.  I'd lose the up main 'short cut' 180 which give more room for the sidings to the right of it and disposes of a clearance problem relating to the trailing sidings that cross the down main accessed from the up main caused by the use of the curved  turnout.

[latestarter]

9 hours ago, Kris said:

I've used the same points and crossings that you have on your first plan and the same size baseboard. There are fewer facing points and quite a lot of sidings. 

 

Thanks again for doing this. I would like to give it a go. However I would want to use as much of the track I have already if possible. If you used SCARM, could I get the file from you?

Edited November 3, 2021 by latestarter

[Kris]

Sorry, I didn't use SCARM. Hopefully this will help however. 

 

[latestarter]

@Kristhat's amazing. I will have a proper look at it later and come back. UPDATE: @Kris I've printed out a list of parts from my SCARM file and will print off your list and compare them later. Thanks again.

Edited November 3, 2021 by latestarter

[Kris]

8 hours ago, RJS1977 said:

Kris - I presume the two sidings making a Churchillian gesture towards the right of the plan are loco stabling sidings, as the proximity to the diamond crossing would make goods sidings there difficult to shunt?

 

Also, the second siding in the bottom left corner is going to be difficult to shunt without a run-round loop. I'd suggest it might be worth Latestarter getting a couple more points and connecting across the bottom of the plan to create a run-round there.

I agree that the bottom sidings are a pain to shunt, I would see one as being for loco storage and the other as a head shunt. 

 

The other two sidings you mention were put in to use up points.

[ITG]

Something else to consider, but apologies if this is a topic you’ve already thought about. Assuming you are using DCC, and that the points are Hornby self-isolating, you will need (benefit from)  a lot of power feeds to the track to get the best out of DCC. Any loco parked or operating in a siding or loop is going to be isolated (from power) if the points are against it, unless power is fed to beyond that point. Best practice in DCC is to feed every individual piece of track so as not to rely on rail joiners to conduct power, as they can become loose fitting and effect conductivity. When using set track, by definition you are going to have a lot more pieces of track than if using flexitrack, so there’s quite a bit of work with all those power feeds. Some modellers will say such multiple feeds are not necessary, but in using self-isolating points, and especially if wanting to shunt whilst running mainline trains, you will certainly want at least some extra feeds.

For example, in Kris’ suggestion, those sidings along the bottom would need power if you wish to shunt independent of main line running. Same for the centre left sidings.

Edited November 3, 2021 by ITG