Suggestions Sought for Hornby Trakmat Extension 4 Layout

[JDW]

I've drawn roughly on Kris' version from above to show what I mean. I've moved the tracks labelled A and B to the right by a few inches, with a platform between them as per RJD1977's idea. I've also suggested a second platform on the outer track, which gives the impression of a bigger station, which might or might not be what you want, but does at least give a plausible location for the station buildings (booking office etc) outside the oval (orange block), and allows for a footbridge (orange line) across to the island allowing plausible access. I considered a platform to the left of A and one between B and C, but that would be overkill I think, and look cluttered. 

 

I've also suggested moving the crossover between inner and outer ovals ('up' and 'down' lines) to the right at the bottom of the plan. In hindsight the one at the top of the plan could also move to the right hand side of the level crossing. That would make it quite easy for a train to arrive in the platform at A or B and the loco run around to the other end, allowing the train to depart in the opposite direction. E.g. train arrives anticlockwise in A, loco uncouples, runs forwards, reverses via B to the bottom crossover, reverses again onto the back of its train, then departs via the crossover back onto the clockwise circuit.

 

[latestarter]

11 minutes ago, JDW said:

I've drawn roughly on Kris' version from above to show what I mean. I've moved the tracks labelled A and B to the right by a few inches, with a platform between them as per RJD1977's idea. I've also suggested a second platform on the outer track, which gives the impression of a bigger station, which might or might not be what you want, but does at least give a plausible location for the station buildings (booking office etc) outside the oval (orange block), and allows for a footbridge (orange line) across to the island allowing plausible access. I considered a platform to the left of A and one between B and C, but that would be overkill I think, and look cluttered. 

 

I've also suggested moving the crossover between inner and outer ovals ('up' and 'down' lines) to the right at the bottom of the plan. In hindsight the one at the top of the plan could also move to the right hand side of the level crossing. That would make it quite easy for a train to arrive in the platform at A or B and the loco run around to the other end, allowing the train to depart in the opposite direction. E.g. train arrives anticlockwise in A, loco uncouples, runs forwards, reverses via B to the bottom crossover, reverses again onto the back of its train, then departs via the crossover back onto the clockwise circuit.

 

Thanks again. I'll print this out tomorrow, then look at it in relation to the actual layout and come back to you.

Edited November 5, 2021 by latestarter

[RJS1977]

TBH I think it's fine as it is - and that short siding is a useful place to stick a loco when not needed.

[latestarter]

There's a story about an engineer who fixed a loco by hitting it with a hammer. When he sent his bill for £1,000, the owner said 'all you did was hit the boiler with a hammer'. Ok said the engineer, my fee for hitting the boiler with a hammer is £1....My fee for knowing exactly where to hit the boiler with the hammer is £999.

 

My point is...not only do I not know where to to hit the boiler, I haven't even got a hammer.

 

I really appreciate all the experience shown here. I just need to pick an engineer.

[RJS1977]

This is one of the reasons not to rush into ballasting the track - you can try out different arrangements and see what works best.

[JDW]

Just to add clarity to what I suggested above about a second platform and access to the station: Of course, if as suggested in the earlier plan there was a tunnel, access to the station platform between A and B could be via steps from a townscape above the tunnel. That part of it was just an alternative to the tunnel idea. 

[Kris]

There are pros and cons to all variations on a plan, and when it comes down to it much is personal preference and operational need.

[latestarter]

I've been taking all of the ideas and suggestions into consideration, and they all interest me to some extent. However, in order to move forward, I'll need to decide on a 'baseline' layout, and I think the original one planned by @Kris with additional ideas from @RJS1977 is one I can live with, having tried 3 locos on it so far.

That said, there's still a lot to get my head around, in terms of actually running trains (how all the points work; where and how to move around the layout etc). I've also found a few derailment issues, which may have more to do with the locos and/or not having the track pinned down properly.

In terms of design, I wondered what you thought of (drum roll...) MY OWN ideas, as in the tweaked plan below?

1. Would the road work if I shorted the track jutting into it? (Removed the R600 and replaced it with R610's).
2. Would a station entrance and 2nd platform fit where I suggest - and I've also suggested a footbridge joining the 2 platforms? Is this workable and realistic?
3. Is where I suggest for a main factory workable?

4. If I have a ledge made for the lower end of the baseboard (to stop locos going off the edge as suggested here - maybe it could be a docks (credit to @RJS1977)
5. Technical question: I don't see how the locos could turn around in the good shed area (green circle) if they approach 'head on'?

Thanks again everyone and all thoughts welcome.
 

Edited November 6, 2021 by latestarter

[RJS1977]

1) Yes, the road should work like that, and shortening the headshunt slightly shouldn't affect shunting the yard. 

 

2) The second platform isn't really needed as the centre one would have two faces, although Ascot has a similar configuration of platforms so there is prototype justification. Alternatively just a station building there and footbridge/subway access to the island platform could be justifiable, or (if room) having the station building on the island platform as per the West Highland or some south London stations (e.g. Stoneleigh) would be acceptable.

 

3) Yes, the factory would work there, though in that case I'd remove the goods shed or put it on a different siding. Alternatively the factory (or another one) could go in the 'V' next to where I've put the loading platform.

 

4) The ledge should work, but as it will make the board wider, check you can still reach the tracks at the back. Again, Scalescenes do some nice boat kits that could sit on it!

 

5) Trains wouldn't approach the goods yard 'head on' - they would be backed in either by trains circulating on the inner (anticlockwise) circuit or shunted across from the lower sidings.

[ITG]

One thing I’ve not seen mentioned is what type of couplings are planned, and indeed how you plan to uncouple? Particularly relevant I’d say with the various fairly short goods roads. There needs to be space on a siding and/or platform roads (maybe) to uncouple, and leave however many wagons/coaches parked. Some proprietary couplings (eg Hornby/Bachmann tension lock) need a straight section to site the uncoupler, and in any case, the parked wagons need to clear the point, and any overhang on the adjacent track. Even such as magnetic uncouplers, although probably smaller than TL uncouplers, will not gain an awful lot of space on those sidings.

Some sidings seem to have only R601 straight (335mm) so by the time an uncoupler ramp is located, there’s not a huge space for parked wagons. I guess it’s an inevitability about sidings length when space is generally at a premium, but you may want to anticipate the coupling/uncoupling question. Not sure if it’s still in production, but at one time Hornby made an uncoupler track, none of which are shown on your plan, are they? Maybe they just use clip-in ramps nowadays, but they still need space to site.

The siding near the road has virtually no straight anyway, which is fine if used as ahead shunt for the goods yard, or as a loco park.

[latestarter]

1 hour ago, RJS1977 said:

1) Yes, the road should work like that, and shortening the headshunt slightly shouldn't affect shunting the yard.

2) The second platform isn't really needed as the centre one would have two faces, although Ascot has a similar configuration of platforms so there is prototype justification. Alternatively just a station building there and footbridge/subway access to the island platform could be justifiable, or (if room) having the station building on the island platform as per the West Highland or some south London stations (e.g. Stoneleigh) would be acceptable.

Thank you. No need to buy extra platform then but probably a station building. My Metcalfe platform kit from Hattons has been held up by Brexit red tape for 3 weeks now. Not sure if it will ever turn up.

Quote

3) Yes, the factory would work there, though in that case I'd remove the goods shed or put it on a different siding. Alternatively the factory (or another one) could go in the 'V' next to where I've put the loading platform.

I've got an (unmade as yet) Metcalfe double track engine shed (as well as the single one already made) and not sure where it should go. Maybe the lower double siding below the small grey Y shape?
 

Quote

4) The ledge should work, but as it will make the board wider, check you can still reach the tracks at the back. Again, Scalescenes do some nice boat kits that could sit on it!

I have good access to the rear side of the baseboard. Going to the left or right has given me a couple of bumps on the head, though, due to the sloping ceiling. Scalescenes boats noted for future reference!

Quote

5) Trains wouldn't approach the goods yard 'head on' - they would be backed in either by trains circulating on the inner (anticlockwise) circuit or shunted across from the lower sidings.

Thank again. This brings me to my next basic (Doh!) question. I'm not sure if I've got the locos moving in the correct direction. The Hornby Select book (and advice from here) states that trains face to the left. But, am I right that up line and down lines go in opposite directions? Please see photos...am I going the right way (taken from controller position, facing baseboard).
 

Edited November 6, 2021 by latestarter

[latestarter]

1 hour ago, ITG said:

One thing I’ve not seen mentioned is what type of couplings are planned, and indeed how you plan to uncouple? Particularly relevant I’d say with the various fairly short goods roads. There needs to be space on a siding and/or platform roads (maybe) to uncouple, and leave however many wagons/coaches parked. Some proprietary couplings (eg Hornby/Bachmann tension lock) need a straight section to site the uncoupler, and in any case, the parked wagons need to clear the point, and any overhang on the adjacent track. Even such as magnetic uncouplers, although probably smaller than TL uncouplers, will not gain an awful lot of space on those sidings.

Some sidings seem to have only R601 straight (335mm) so by the time an uncoupler ramp is located, there’s not a huge space for parked wagons. I guess it’s an inevitability about sidings length when space is generally at a premium, but you may want to anticipate the coupling/uncoupling question. Not sure if it’s still in production, but at one time Hornby made an uncoupler track, none of which are shown on your plan, are they? Maybe they just use clip-in ramps nowadays, but they still need space to site.

The siding near the road has virtually no straight anyway, which is fine if used as ahead shunt for the goods yard, or as a loco park.

Thanks very much for this point. It's been on my mind, and I've looked at a few YT videos but got caught up in the basics of the layout (I still am, see above) so had to defer the question.

The only uncoupler I have so far is the Hornby R620 (Railer and Uncoupler Track). I have no idea where it should go, so it's at the end of the lower LH siding at the moment. Advice on how many more I need and best positioning of them is welcome.

Edited November 6, 2021 by latestarter

[ITG]

I’m not familiar with Hornby uncoupling devices but I’d say you need them where you operationally want to park a wagon or coach. That could be every sidings except loco storage or headshunt. I’d place then further up the siding than the example picture, because where it is, you’d only be able to uncouple at most one wagon at the envy end of the siding. 
the other place you in theory might want them is in platform roads at the loco (direction of travel) end, so that the loco can uncouple and then run round the train - if you plan on any terminating services. I say ‘in theory’ because the largely curved nature of your platform roads will make it nigh impossible to site them.

If you like shunting, terminating, reversing etc, you need to consider where to build them in ASAP. Otherwise there’s a risk you’ll end up with trains that go round and round, but nowhere build up trains or dismantle, 

Other option, use a manual uncoupler ‘spatula’ device to push up tension lock uncoupling anywhere on the layout.

[latestarter]

34 minutes ago, ITG said:

If you like shunting, terminating, reversing etc, you need to consider where to build them in ASAP. Otherwise there’s a risk you’ll end up with trains that go round and round, but nowhere build up trains or dismantle, 

Other option, use a manual uncoupler ‘spatula’ device to push up tension lock uncoupling anywhere on the layout.

I can't say I 'like shunting', because I've never done it - but as my dad was a 'real life' shunter, I definitely want to try and, and watching trains go round and round, is not my main purpose for building the layout. Actually, the main purpose is...building the layout (to learn new skills and avoid the wild south of Ireland winter weather).

I tried shunting the Ruston briefly this morning, and once I have some way of controlling the points, I can see that it will be a great way to use my brain and pass the time. I've heard of the 'Inglenook Shunting Puzzle' and would like to see if I can use that on my layout. Manual points control may be my preferred method. I saw some sold in the US by Caboose Industries and I've had some emails with him.
 

Edited November 6, 2021 by latestarter

[chuffinghell]

These uncouplers are possibly better for your needs as the take up less room and are less conspicuous (even more so if you don’t use the lollipop)

 

Hornby Track Single Uncoupler R617

 

 

Also they can be placed on any straight length of track so if you’re not happy with the location they easily moved without having to move your track around

 

Just a thought

 

Edited November 6, 2021 by chuffinghell

[latestarter]

37 minutes ago, chuffinghell said:

These uncouplers are possibly better for your needs as the take up less room and are less conspicuous (even more so if you don’t use the lollipop)

 

Hornby Track Single Uncoupler R617

 

 

Also they can be placed on any straight length of track so if you’re not happy with the location they easily moved without having to move your track around

 

Just a thought

 

It's a great thought, thank you. I'll see if I can find some.

[MyRule1]

55 minutes ago, chuffinghell said:

These uncouplers are possibly better for your needs as the take up less room and are less conspicuous (even more so if you don’t use the lollipop)

 

Hornby Track Single Uncoupler R617

Having experimented with various uncoupling solutions recently I came to the conclusion that as a basic system the Hornby system works as well as any, despite being un-prototypical.  There work very well for uncoupling in fixed locations but I made one big mistake on my initial installation. You have to allow enough room on your sidings to be able to reverse the train to enable coupling to work. I had two on a platform line and found that although the incoming loco could uncouple their was not enough room for the incoming loco to back the train back.

[Kris]

Another option for how to shunt your factory area.

Move 1 - An industrial loco shunts wagons that are in sidings 1 and 2 (does not matter which these are) and places the wagons to depart into siding 4.

Move 2 - A main line loco pulling the train would pull into siding 3 (pick a siding and call it number 3 doesn't matter which one).

Move 3 - the industrial loco then approaches from the rear and removes the train to the head shunt releasing the train loco.

Move 4 - The main line loco then picks up a train waiting in siding 4 (again it does not matter which one this is) and departs.

Move 5 - The industrial loco and train in the head shunt can then be shunted into sidings 1 and 2. 

 

Uncoupler question - The uncouple needs to be further down the tracks. You need space beyond it for the wagons being detached to be left (this is the same with all uncouplers). The type of uncoupler that you have is good for putting wagons on to the track (I have one on my son's layout for this purpose), but I have placed R617's else where.

[latestarter]

Thanks for all the help with the uncoupler and shunting advice everyone, I really appreciate it. If anyone can check my other question (with photos) about which way the locos should run, I would be grateful. Thanks again for all your help. I couldn't do this on my own - that's for sure!

[RJS1977]

1 hour ago, latestarter said:

Thanks for all the help with the uncoupler and shunting advice everyone, I really appreciate it. If anyone can check my other question (with photos) about which way the locos should run, I would be grateful. Thanks again for all your help. I couldn't do this on my own - that's for sure!

 

Yes, trains run on the left, so the outer loop is clockwise and inner anticlockwise.

 

In terms of 'up' and 'down', 'up' is generally defined as being the line heading towards London (or some other important centre), with 'down' being away *. It's up to you to determine which is the up line and which is the down line, but it will probably make little real difference to how your layout is operated - they're just labels.

 

(*) The exception being some lines in mountainous areas like the Vale of Rheidol and the Ffestiniog, where 'up' trains go up the hill and 'down' trains come down - in the case of the Ffestiniog, that goes right back to the days of gravity trains. However both these lines are primarily single track and are not really relevant to this discussion!

[latestarter]

1 hour ago, RJS1977 said:

 

Yes, trains run on the left, so the outer loop is clockwise and inner anticlockwise.

 

In terms of 'up' and 'down', 'up' is generally defined as being the line heading towards London (or some other important centre), with 'down' being away *. It's up to you to determine which is the up line and which is the down line, but it will probably make little real difference to how your layout is operated - they're just labels.

 

(*) The exception being some lines in mountainous areas like the Vale of Rheidol and the Ffestiniog, where 'up' trains go up the hill and 'down' trains come down - in the case of the Ffestiniog, that goes right back to the days of gravity trains. However both these lines are primarily single track and are not really relevant to this discussion!

Once again thanks for coming back to me with your advice. That helps me to get a clear picture of what I'm doing. I'm not sure what locality I am modelling, as I'm originally from the NW of England, near Rainhill, but now live in the south of Ireland and haven't seen a trainline within 100 kilometres.

 

It's a very beautiful area with mountains, islands and the atlantic ocean. So an urban goods yard based on my dad's factory, perhaps with a quayside (I live in a fishing village) will be an interesting compromise.

Edited November 7, 2021 by latestarter

[The Johnster]

Up is towards London as a rule, but there are exceptions.  I nominated your outside clockwise circuit as the up for clarity in description, but if you decide it's the down, well, it's your layout and that's fine. 

 

In South Wales, and perhaps in other places with similar geography, the independent railways (Taff Vale, Rhymney, Barry, Rhondda & Swansea Bay, and so on) usually used 'up' to denote the line that went up the hill, up the valley, and 'down' for the downhill one, but the GW regarded 'up' as the way you go to get to Paddington, which in GW terms was the ultimate aspirational goal of all trains, and as on their lines this meant travelling down the valley to change on to an up South Wales Main Line train, the downhill track became the up and the uphill the down.  Paying attention at the back? there'll be a test later...

 

In the case of the Newport, Abergavenny, and Hereford section of the north to west route, up became the line northwards from Maindee Jc in Newport towards Hereford.  This is because trains on the route left Newport High Street on the up main line and arrived at Hereford in the same direction as Hereford-Paddington trains left the station, though this actually faced away from Paddington.  Not all railways go to or from London, but they will have up and down lines that have achieved this nomclemature in a similar way.

 

 

31 minutes ago, latestarter said:

Once again thanks for coming back to me with your advice. That helps me to get a clear picture of what I'm doing. I'm not sure what locality I am modelling, as I'm originally from the NW of England, near Rainhill, but now live in the south of Ireland and haven't seen a trainline within 100 kilometres.

 

It's a very beautiful area with mountains, islands and the atlantic ocean. So an urban goods yard based on my dad's factory, perhaps with a quayside (I live in a fishing village) will be an interesting compromise.

 

Kerry is spectacular, and I have to agree that a layout based on a scene of urban industrialised misery might be a welcome relief for anyone who has to suffer that sort of beauty overload on a daily basis.  It's just god showing off, isn't it.

[latestarter]

8 hours ago, The Johnster said:

 Not all railways go to or from London, but they will have up and down lines that have achieved this nomclemature in a similar way.

 

When I got my first uni teaching job in the mid 1990's I moved to a village (Wivenhoe) just outside Colchester. Literally right across the narrow road from my terraced house, was a branch line to London. Amazingly, I got used to the flashing lights and droning noise of the track cleaning loco at 3am on a Sunday morning. I never got used to the mass of parked cars along the street, making it impossible to park until 8pm at night, after a full day's work.

 

They belonged to commuters who would not pay the car park fee at the station, 150 yards from my front door. Long story short...I went to see my MP (now Sir Bernard Jenkin), he contacted local Councillors and 6 months later we had residents only parking. True story. 

 

Quote

Kerry is spectacular, and I have to agree that a layout based on a scene of urban industrialised misery might be a welcome relief for anyone who has to suffer that sort of beauty overload on a daily basis.  It's just god showing off, isn't it.

My pal the Parish Priest tells me the views from my conservatory (Portmagee Bay to the east and the Kerry cliffs to the west) is God telling me I have to strive every day to deserve them! BTW I took the photo of the Kerry cliffs (above) from my back garden, with my drone. I walked down to the quay (8 mins) for the other one. Now, that really is showing off.  

[RJS1977]

An interesting situation regarding ups and downs is the Reading - Gatwick Airport service.

 

From Reading to Wokingham, the service shares tracks with South Western's Reading-Waterloo service, so the train is travelling in the up direction.

 

Through Guildford station, the service is travelling in the same direction as the Waterloo-Portsmouth services, so it is travelling in the down direction.

 

From Reigate to Redhill, the train shares tracks with Southern's Reigate - London Bridge service (up direction).

 

At Redhill the train reverses and heads away from London towards Gatwick (down direction).

 

(Between Ash Junction and Guildford, the service shares tracks with a service which leaves Ascot in the down direction, reaches Aldershot still travelling in the down direction (shares tracks with the Waterloo-Alton service, reverses - so now in the up direction, and coming into Guildford is travelling in the same direction as the London-Portsmouth service, so is a down train again).

 

Which direction the train is travelling in between Wokingham and Ash Junction and between Shalford Junction and Reigate is unclear. Perhaps coincidentally, these are the sections of line which are not electrified!) 

[latestarter]

Just had a couple of hours in the 'railway room' (as it's now been christened) and I'm having more questions arise than answers, but that's probably a good thing, at my early stage. I'm also having trouble with my Bachmann Ivat on points, which I post in another thread, to keep it tidy, as I suspect the issue is with the loco and not the track.

Here's a couple of technical questions that occurred to me, should anyone wish to chip in with their thoughts...bearing in mind I feel a bit like I'm imposing now, but at the same time could not manage without your help.

1. @The Johnster mentioned that I may only need 'bypass' wiring, as I'm definitely getting power throughout the whole layout. There does not seem to be a drop in power with 3 locos running. The Aberdonian goes at a reckless speed when at max throttle.

My soldering iron arrives tomorrow...So, what is 'bypass wiring' and how do I do it?

2. I've had some problem with all 3 locos (Aberdonian, Ruston and Ivatt) derailing always when crossing points. Usually those close to the lower sidings and especially the ones next to the diamond crossing. My guess is that it's because the points were set against the direction of travel (I have no better way to put that and it's just my own 'feeling).

Is that a 'thing', do the points have to be set a certain way - according to the way the train is moving to avoid derailing? 

Thanks again for all the help...I'll back!

Edited November 7, 2021 by latestarter