Jump to content
 

My next layout...and a question.


AndrueC
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • RMweb Premium

I've been reading from the beginning and have to admit I'm not sure where you're going with this really. It seems a bit stuck somewhere between 'train set roundy-roundy' and 'model railway'. At the end of the day, of course, it has to please and satify you and no one else.

I presume each of the sets of loops is the 'three goods yards for each type of freight'? - but each one seems to have the main line running through the middle, and generally a yard would either be off to the side, or for modern traffic like the Cargowaggons or 'silver bullets' it'd more likely be to an industrial siding or complex than a railway goods yard. 

You've said you want movement and having things 'constantly running' but only have a single track main line all the way round, with lots of trains sat waiting, will mean one train does a lap, or moves between two places, then another, then another. Apart from the branch shuttle, there's not much potential for anything more. If you're wanting an air of 'secondary main line' you could still achieve that with, say, double track along the bottom and right hand side as far as the station, narrowing to single track beyond (to the left of) the station. 

Likewise, the station layout is neither particularly interesting nor realistic, but if it achieves your aims then that has to be the main consideration. With a few exceptions, it would be odd to have a platform on both sides of the same line. Normally a station such as yours would be laid out as either 

track - platform - track - track - platform - track

or 

platform - track - track - platform - track - track - platform

This kind of layout then gives more options for crossovers to allow trains on and off the branch line - though again, that's probably only really a consideration if you're after realistic operation or appearance.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

@JDW, thanks for the comment about platform layout, I had wondered about that and will update accordingly.

 

The reason I went continuous run with my current layout is just so that you can stand and watch while it does its thing rather than because I want to watch a single train going round and round. Computer control allows an end-to-end layout to satisfy that requirement and also adds realism since my hidden yards create the illusion of there being other areas beyond this layout that trains are travelling to. The only reason I still have a loop is because it avoids the need to turn trains around. Operation will basically consist of a number of moves in a sequenced dance so I hope to have a train moving between each of the stationary areas of the main line like a game of baseball with trains going between each 'base' when they can.

 

Having written that though I've used @ITG's feedback and added a siding/service area at top left. I've also been a bit 'creative' and added a goods branch along the bottom. It's elevated which is nice (I like elevated track) and it's also an excuse to have a diamond crossing. I even get two lines crossing via a bridge which is something I wanted  in my current layout but couldn't do. I'm going to have to experiment with it a bit because it includes a 2.5% inclined curve. My experience of inclines means that I'm fairly sure that will be fine but I've never built an inclined curve before. I also need to add a run around to both ends of its run. One at the bottom is easy enough but I need to think about where it will normally terminate. Probably in the main goods yard so I suppose the loco could just go out and round via the station but there may be a better way.

 

I'm not particularly bothered about it being prototypical except that following 'likely scenarios' does help with planning because it hints at where things go and what there should be rather than just having to guess. It also helps a bit with realism.Layout2.jpg.d595575f4d2c80abec5f5ea4b4f05643.jpg

(does not include run-arounds nor re-arranged main station platforms).

Edited by AndrueC
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

I've not commented on this thread before because of your early comment about not wanting to be prototypical, but perhaps I misunderstood what you meant as you're now asking "is this all right?" questions, so I'll dip a toe in ...

 

You asked about bi-directional running on your single main line.  Plenty of examples of this, but rarer (for obvious reasons) on lines with long trains and heavy freight traffic.  Personally I would go for a double main line because I like to see long trains passing each other - but a single line does make arranging prototypical access to goods yards and motive power depots easier, there are less rules to avoid breaking.  If I stuck to a single main line, I would make sure there was a significant differentiation between main and branch lines everywhere, to avoid any chance of the arrangement being perceived as a double track main with 50% wrong-road running on both tracks.  One idea you might consider is for the DMU branch to be at high level, rather than the goods line, with lines either side of a single high-level platform at the station.  This might also help to hide the storage loops ..... Your only gradient would then be a link from the DMU branch to the main, which I agree with others would be desirable to include (even if nothing ever ran on it).

 

I think you could get what you want from a double track main line, with two platforms in each direction in the main station, and goods lay-by loops off each track out in the country down the right hand side.  With a couple of hidden storage lines off each circuit, that would give you lots of options for your "dance sequence".  You could, for example, leave one train circulating on the up line while you shuffled trains round on the down, then vice versa.

 

I may be wrong , but your comments about freight ops suggest you envisage a train coming into a goods yard loop line, wagons being loaded and unloaded, and the train going on its merry way, just like a passenger train disembarking and unloading its passengers.  This doesn't happen.   Back in the day, trip freights went from station goods yard to station goods yard, with wagons for unloading detached from the train and shunted into sidings in the yard, and other wagons (possibly empty, possibly recently loaded) being picked up.  Loading and unloading was a slow time operation, not carried out while the train was waiting in the yard.  But the types of modern freight trains you are thinking of generally run from point A, where they're loaded, to point B, where they're emptied, without intermediate stops (except perhaps in lay-by loops, to allow passenger trains to overtake).  Though I suppose detachment/collection of a cargowagon or two might be a possibility, I'm not familiar with their method of operation (others will be).  Whatever, the three curving freight loops behind the station look hugely unprototypical.

 

As does, with all respect to your father, the diamond crossing where the goods line crosses the branch on your latest plan.  The railways would see that as an accident waiting to happen, and try to avoid it all costs.

 

You're on an interesting journey here, if you really end up with 6m x 4m then the possibilities in N gauge are enormous and I can't see any reason why you would think train lengths are limited to under a metre.  It'll be interesting to see how your ideas develop.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
2 hours ago, AndrueC said:

Computer control allows an end-to-end layout to satisfy that requirement and also adds realism since my hidden yards create the illusion of there being other areas beyond this layout that trains are travelling to. The only reason I still have a loop is because it avoids the need to turn trains around. Operation will basically consist of a number of moves in a sequenced dance so I hope to have a train moving between each of the stationary areas of the main line like a game of baseball with trains going between each 'base' when they can.

I’m just beginning to consider computer control myself (using iTrain) and, from what I’ve learnt, it does occur to me that you also probably need to be considering blocks as you are designing this layout. When you describe ‘baseball’ and ‘dance’, it suggests the ‘when’, ‘if’ and ‘where’ trains will start and stop needs serious thought, eg blocks must be longer than your longest train, and these blocks won’t just be the storage loops, as entry and exit roads are key parts of managing train flow.

2 hours ago, AndrueC said:

'm not particularly bothered about it being prototypical except that following 'likely scenarios' does help with planning

I think that is what makes it both challenging and interesting to offer ideas, because we can only guess where your  line is drawn between ‘not bothering about the prototype’ and ‘likely scenarios’. For instance, are you thinking about how road vehicle and passenger access to stations or yards will work?

 

56 minutes ago, Chimer said:

think you could get what you want from a double track main line

I agree, especially as I would have thought watching two trains circle is twice as interesting as watching one. More so with computer control, as the automation needs to manage more than just a linear procession, if trains have to crossover tracks to access yards or platforms etc.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

Yes I've already done some research on block detection. I might eventually go with a full RFID system as I'd love to have a map on  screen showing the progress of each train around the track and you're right that it will aid the timetable logic. That looks like being expensive but as this is going to be my second 'hobby for life' a little investment doesn't hurt :)

 

And yes, the diamond crossing is 'silly'. But I remember my Dad agreeing with me how good they look and lamenting that he could put one on the layout he built for me and my brother when we were young (forty years ago!). This is obviously where I draw the line between 'what I want' and 'prototypical' :)

 

As regards that prototypical tipping point, yes it's difficult to be precise. When it comes down to it I don't really care. But having built a layout I'm now aware that it's a lot easier to follow real examples than to just imagine what exist. Also it does give a bit more flow to the whole thing. My current layout is good (I like it) but it has no stations, there is currently a work yard with very poor road access and..meh :)

 

I haven't yet thought about roads and buildings. It's beginning to look like there won't be many buildings other than a few isolated houses here and there. So I'll probably just have a town backscene and roads will go more or less where they can.

 

The only reason I limit my train lengths is because of the space available for yards and the fact that I won't be doing much shunting. My yards are currently as long as they can be with the space available I think. When I finally get around to dismantling my current layout one of the things I want to do is try and create the longest train possible just to see what's possible :)

 

I was intending to leave freight vehicles in the goods yard for a while. They'd dance more 'slowly' than passenger trains, perhaps moving every third opportunity or some such.

Edited by AndrueC
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

I'm still inclined to agree with the others above about a double track line. It looks like you have lots of space, and lots of storage for trains to form part of the 'dance', but I can't help thinking it would be more of a shuffle as each one takes its turn, one at a time, to move from one bit of the large layout to another, with potentially nothing happening anywhere else. You said again you want to watch a train go round and round, but there doesn't really seem to be a clear path for that, just a series of interlinked yards/staging areas - it reminds me more of something North American than British. If trains are just advancing from one yard to the next, then any moves between the bottom and left hand yards are going to be pretty uninteresting I'd have thought. Train sets off, turns 90 degrees, stops again. Or if trains will start and finish from the same yard, then it means they're spending part of each lap just passing through another yard. If it were me, I'd just have one set of sidings rather than one after the other, or at least space them out so there's something interesting happening between them. 

Again if it were me, and I had to design in a diamond crossing, I'd look at using one as part of a connection to/from the branch from a two-track main route through the station

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
2 hours ago, JDW said:

Again if it were me, and I had to design in a diamond crossing, I'd look at using one as part of a connection to/from the branch from a two-track main route through the station

Like this maybe .....

 

445198355_AndrueCgif.gif.cc32f7c6ffb9eed7ca40ae6948d8b15e.gif

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

Okay so you gave me lots to think about, and I've incorporated some of your ideas into the latest version but I thought I'd address some points:

 

Continuous running.

I think I've got you hung up on this a bit. It would more accurate to say that I'd like 'continuous running with no operator intervention'. Round-roundy provides this but suffers from a lack of realism since the train never actually goes anywhere. With this layout and my 'dance' you can watch a train depart the station or goods yard then not appear again for a minute or two. It creates the illusion of trains going somewhere. Yes it means there might be brief periods when nothing much is moving but that's fine and with careful programming I ought to be able to reduce those. The DMU can do its own thing so I just have to ensure that when the mainline is in between moves and stopped, the DMU is running and vice versa.

 

I will be running trains on the mainline both clockwise and anticlockwise at the same time - they will 'pass' in the station or goods yard. 'Pass' because they will stop when they get there. And while two passenger trains are stopped in the station one or more goods trains can use the mainline to get to the goods yard.

 

Depending on the software I hope to have some randomness about when trains leave the station or goods yard.  So a passenger train might wait for two goods movements or perhaps two clockwise trains will run while an anticlockwise sits in the station. Programmatically it's a simple problem to code so if I have to I'll write it :)

 

So it's not continuous running but I think it will be interesting to watch.

 

The separate staging yards

Think of these as a single yard. There is no such move as 'cross between the yards' . I haven't even decided if that crossing will be visible. I might make a fancy bridge there or I might try and cover it up to hide it from view. All the following will be happen at the same time and it's up to the viewer to look at which they want to see:

* Train exiting yard and appearing on layout.

* Train entering yard and disappearing from layout.

* Train crossing between the yards if I don't hide it.

 

 

Double track mainline

I experimented with this a bit tonight and I haven't ruled it out. It does complicate the entry to the goods yard however especially for the goods branch line. What I ended up with had three diamond crossings at one point and nostalgia's all well and good but that's taking it too far.

 

Loading/unloading.

This is where I hit the limit of my prototypical interest. I don't mind that my freight trains arrive at the goods yard then carry on after a while. As it happens the branch goods line is going to have to do a run around through the station so there's no reason why other goods trains couldn't if I find that it works well enough.

 

Anyway enough waffling. This is the latest incarnation:

Layout2.jpg.19cc4dcbbdf996475295e0b844038d4b.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, AndrueC said:

What to do in a spare fifteen minutes? A bit of weathering.

I'm impressed (and if the whole thing really only took 15 minutes I'm *very* impressed!)

The colouring on both the inside with the rusty steel and the outside with the grubby, bashed-about-a-bit it-was-green-some-time-ago are spot on.

Also, the yellow text is nice - there's enough there that you can certainly see someone thinking "Should I repaint that? Nah - it's still just about readable - leave it for another year".

You've definitely captured the run down and beaten up look very well.

  • Agree 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...