RMW "Layout & Track Design" - all change............

[halsey]

I do think the upper layer looks very weird, where it runs above the harbour scene - suspended in the middle of the sky   At the very least, it needs to be 'hidden' behind the sky at this point.  I don't have any other ideas to offer at the moment but no-doubt someone will.

 

I think probably deep down I've always been uncomfortable with it - it was all about operational interest and being prepared to imagine it was disconnected/somewhere else but it doesn't work - even my wife struggled with it!

J

Edited October 16, 2017 by halsey

[Zomboid]

So if you lose it, and the operational interest it provides, what are you left with? It's just plain track under there at the moment, right?

The harbour backscene beneath the station is probably a mistake, but you don't necessarily need to chuck the baby out with the bathwater there; it could become a conventional retaining wall, and having a passenger station adjacent to the docks isn't that uncommon.

[halsey]

So if you lose it, and the operational interest it provides, what are you left with? It's just plain track under there at the moment, right?

The harbour backscene beneath the station is probably a mistake, but you don't necessarily need to chuck the baby out with the bathwater there; it could become a conventional retaining wall, and having a passenger station adjacent to the docks isn't that uncommon.

 

I agree that the scenic treatment doesn't help to sell the illusion but perhaps the real issue is my inability to "model" the upper section as it simply out of comfortable reach.

 

I am developing a thought in my head which is a compromise and far less "destructive"........................

 

To leave all aspects of the branchline coming off the roundy roundy loop and rising (incl the bridge as it is ) towards the currently laid out upper station BUT to stop it at the point when as a straight track run it disappears into the LH corner (as you view from the control area).

 

This will enable me to remove 95% of the upper area woodwork, hide the mainline tracks completely, retain the total scenic break between the docks and the engine shed and remodel particularly the docks as a bonafide area disappearing in to the RH corner.

 

The "branchline" will disappear into a short tunnel which will simply serve to hide a railcar which will run back and forth to the village station - I have been tracking the new Dapol GWR railcar which would be perfect for this purpose with a little operational licence that LMS were reviewing this new fangled idea by borrowing a GWR for a trial.

 

What do "we" think???

 

All contributions gratefully received.

 

BFN

[Harlequin]

Hi,

 

I haven't looked back through the history of this thread but I think it would be a shame to have an imagined branch line destination rather than a real one. I think you would find operation unsatisfying. A railcar needs a platform(!) and I don't see one anywhere else on your layout, if I'm reading the plans right - er, but they don't really match up with the photos, so it's a bit confusing.

 

I think the basic problem is that the baseboard is just too wide on the west (and arguably on the north). I see on the photos that you have a turntable and loco stabling on the lower level in front of the branch line station which is not shown on the track plan you linked to, which I guess is why the baseboards are so wide there).

 

I don't know what your constraints and requirements are for the layout (if you could summarise for us latecomers that would be great).

 

So bearing in mind that I might be missing something: If you were starting from scratch I would suggest:

• Have a bit less baseboard area and more room in the middle. Ensure that you can reach the back everywhere without too much stretching.
• Make the trackwork fit more efficiently - a bit less empty space between siding lines.
• A simple loop on the main level (maybe twin track) with a simple lifting section across the doorway carrying just the level loop track(s).
• Start the branch line rising just to the south of the doorway and have the high-level branch line terminus on the longer north side rather than the west.
• Put your fiddle yard in front of, and partially under, the terminus - then there's no scenic conflict between the high and low levels.
• Have your goods yard on the south side.

Probably not realistic but it might give you some ideas...

Edited October 17, 2017 by Harlequin

[Chimer]

For me, the branch terminus to fiddle yard bit of the existing layout is the bit which can be operated pretty much prototypically.  You could work out a full timetable with shuttles to the junction, through coaches to London, football specials, market day cattle trains etc etc.  The lower level circuit and goods yard, on the other hand, is basically an extensive shunting puzzle ....... ooops ....... hold it .......

 

Wrote that then checked the other thread which covered the change from goods yard to station last year.  If it's not too much of a pain, can you knock up a current track plan so we can see the starting point for any new developments?

 

I suspect the issue is you want to do something more dramatic over the winter months than just tweaking and improving.  If you were Coachmann or Andrew P, you'd have ripped it all up by now, and be starting from scratch, but as an ordinary mortal like the rest of us you're thinking it through.  Maybe this winter just trying new things (ballasting?) on the existing layout, next summer drawing plans on the canals, next winter rebuild .... you'll still be ahead of me!

 

Cheers and happy modelling!

 

Chris

[halsey]

Hi,

 

I haven't looked back through the history of this thread but I think it would be a shame to have an imagined branch line destination rather than a real one. I think you would find operation unsatisfying. A railcar needs a platform(!) and I don't see one anywhere else on your layout, if I'm reading the plans right - er, but they don't really match up with the photos, so it's a bit confusing.

 

I think the basic problem is that the baseboard is just too wide on the west (and arguably on the north). I see on the photos that you have a turntable and loco stabling on the lower level in front of the branch line station which is not shown on the track plan you linked to, which I guess is why the baseboards are so wide there).

 

I don't know what your constraints and requirements are for the layout (if you could summarise for us latecomers that would be great).

 

So bearing in mind that I might be missing something: If you were starting from scratch I would suggest:

• Have a bit less baseboard area and more room in the middle. Ensure that you can reach the back everywhere without too much stretching.
• Make the trackwork fit more efficiently - a bit less empty space between siding lines.
• A simple loop on the main level (maybe twin track) with a simple lifting section across the doorway carrying just the level loop track(s).
• Start the branch line rising just to the south of the doorway and have the high-level branch line terminus on the longer north side rather than the west.
• Put your fiddle yard in front of, and partially under, the terminus - then there's no scenic conflict between the high and low levels.
• Have your goods yard on the south side.

Probably not realistic but it might give you some ideas...

 

Many thanks for the input - the plans and the layout have clearly evolved but with very little material change and clearly the photos prevail.

 

I do agree if I were starting completely from scratch I might do some stuff differently but I'm not and definitely don't want to and generally I like what has been achieved

 

I do ONLY want to focus on the upper level which as you quite rightly say is partly compromised by the baseboard being too deep but again that's how it is - I want to remove the exacerbating factor in the best way possible

 

ZOMBOIDs point is a good one in not throwing the baby out of the bathwater - for my purposes this needs a fix not a rebuild.

 

Thanks

[halsey]

For me, the branch terminus to fiddle yard bit of the existing layout is the bit which can be operated pretty much prototypically.  You could work out a full timetable with shuttles to the junction, through coaches to London, football specials, market day cattle trains etc etc.  The lower level circuit and goods yard, on the other hand, is basically an extensive shunting puzzle ....... ooops ....... hold it .......

 

Wrote that then checked the other thread which covered the change from goods yard to station last year.  If it's not too much of a pain, can you knock up a current track plan so we can see the starting point for any new developments?

 

I suspect the issue is you want to do something more dramatic over the winter months than just tweaking and improving.  If you were Coachmann or Andrew P, you'd have ripped it all up by now, and be starting from scratch, but as an ordinary mortal like the rest of us you're thinking it through.  Maybe this winter just trying new things (ballasting?) on the existing layout, next summer drawing plans on the canals, next winter rebuild .... you'll still be ahead of me!

 

Cheers and happy modelling!

 

Chris

 

Hi Chris,

 

The track plan with the exception of the engine shed area is pretty accurate in track terms all the goods to station involved was a run around - I'm not a track plan person and whilst I'm resisting this it really won't be much different.

 

I have started dismantling the removable scenic stuff to present to me the bare basics and I think the solution is presenting to cut the width of the branch baseboard in half and create a "halt" for the railcar idea, preserve the scenic break as now to the right of the engine sheds (where the siding switches are) and remove all the rest to the right allowing the harbour scene to develop better and get rid of my longest stretch which is into that corner where the electric socket is covered by the hotel building

 

I don't want to start again as per those members quoted perhaps I would have done that 10 years ago - "evolution not revolution" is more my retirement based philosophy - doing the wiring under the baseboards nearly killed my hip so I don't want to do it again - the fact that the base boards are quite high to help with my wiring (and perspective) was good but has in part caused some of the problems I now have

 

I am still very aware that all of this is in a 9*7 shed so I don't expect perfection and never have.

 

KR - its good to be back!

[Harlequin]

Hi again,

 

Instead of drawing up to date track plans, maybe you could post "aerial" photos?

 

I.e. stand in the middle with the camera/phone as high as possible looking down on the baseboards, turn clockwise taking photos that overlap slightly.

 

We can work it out from there.

[halsey]

Hi again,

 

Instead of drawing up to date track plans, maybe you could post "aerial" photos?

 

I.e. stand in the middle with the camera/phone as high as possible looking down on the baseboards, turn clockwise taking photos that overlap slightly.

 

We can work it out from there.

 

Happy to oblige - these are "bare" with all scenery, buildings and some back scene elements removed to aid my thinking and are taken moving clockwise

 

Hope it helps................

[DCB]

I think you have a good workable layout now but for me the scenics let it down.  The terminus above the sea is pretty naff, and the pretty backscenes are great from the best viewing angle but pretty unconvincing otherwise.

I would revisit the vertical between terminus and low level and try to blend it between upper and lower levels, retaining walls are good as are arches but it does need to work for both levels.

I would also look at the station on the lower level, many real stations have their platforms at ground level and the tracks at a lower level. I think if you brought your station buildings up to platform level and in filled the area between the platforms with fibreboard or similar it would help. 

There is no reason why the lift out section cannot be scenic, I have 6 or 7 tracks and half a station on a lift out.

[halsey]

I think you have a good workable layout now but for me the scenics let it down.  The terminus above the sea is pretty naff, and the pretty backscenes are great from the best viewing angle but pretty unconvincing otherwise.

I would revisit the vertical between terminus and low level and try to blend it between upper and lower levels, retaining walls are good as are arches but it does need to work for both levels.

I would also look at the station on the lower level, many real stations have their platforms at ground level and the tracks at a lower level. I think if you brought your station buildings up to platform level and in filled the area between the platforms with fibreboard or similar it would help. 

There is no reason why the lift out section cannot be scenic, I have 6 or 7 tracks and half a station on a lift out.

 

I think you have a good workable layout now but for me the scenics let it down.  The terminus above the sea is pretty naff, and the pretty backscenes are great from the best viewing angle but pretty unconvincing otherwise. - AGREED I was perhaps trying to set the scene to quickly/cheaply but it did help me embrace the concept some aspects of which now don't work!

 

I would revisit the vertical between terminus and low level and try to blend it between upper and lower levels, retaining walls are good as are arches but it does need to work for both levels. AGREED

 

I would also look at the station on the lower level, many real stations have their platforms at ground level and the tracks at a lower level. I think if you brought your station buildings up to platform level and in filled the area between the platforms with fibreboard or similar it would help. I DONT UNDERSTAND am I lifting buildings or track and why??

 

There is no reason why the lift out section cannot be scenic, I have 6 or 7 tracks and half a station on a lift out. NOTED and not an issue once I commit to it, hinging rather than lift out is an issue but one I've now decided I'm going to live with

 

Nice to see the old design team coming together .............................thanks all.

 

J

[imt]

Apart from being supportive and encouraging in general, I find it difficult to help in detail since (to be brutally honest) your layout doesn't tick many of my boxes.  As I remember it way back this was what you wanted - a mainly freight layout with loco facilities.  I thought that was where you ended up.  The only bit I like is the upper station - but that's because I like running trains and timetables etc.  My personal opinion would be that if you take out the upper station there is no interest left, but this is YOUR layout.

 

Apart from having the upper station over the top of a back scene which shows a port (as you say a bit difficult to come to a visual appreciation of) what's the problem?  Is it that you cannot effectively operate the upper station (reach or lack of facilities?) or you cannot imagine how it interacts with the lower level (which is my problem).  I don't see how this hangs together as a railway system - why does stuff go from A to B, why do you Marshall train in some way or other - where's the contents (people, goods) going to?

 

I am also finding it difficult to understand where this station on the lower level is (all I can see is fans of sidings all over the place) and how passenger trains get from it to the upper level.

 

To me a layout has a place in the greater scheme of things: stations and goods yards were built in the places they were put because they had a purpose and connected with traffic flows (people, goods) to other places which had a demand.  This is why lots of layouts have "fiddle yards" which represent these sources and destinations, so the visible bit has the purpose of building coal trains for "X" or stripping out goods for "Y" from larger trains, and then releasing the main train before forwarding the "cut" up a branch (real or imagined).  I think you chose not to have hidden "fiddle" areas - but I'd have to re-read everything to check how we got here.

Edited October 17, 2017 by imt

[halsey]

Apart from being supportive and encouraging in general, I find it difficult to help in detail since (to be brutally honest) your layout doesn't tick many of my boxes.  As I remember it way back this was what you wanted - a mainly freight layout with loco facilities.  I thought that was where you ended up.  The only bit I like is the upper station - but that's because I like running trains and timetables etc.  My personal opinion would be that if you take out the upper station there is no interest left, but this is YOUR layout.

 

Apart from having the upper station over the top of a back scene which shows a port (as you say a bit difficult to come to a visual appreciation of) what's the problem?  Is it that you cannot effectively operate the upper station (reach or lack of facilities?) or you cannot imagine how it interacts with the lower level (which is my problem).  I don't see how this hangs together as a railway system - why does stuff go from A to B, why do you Marshall train in some way or other - where's the contents (people, goods) going to?

 

I am also finding it difficult to understand where this station on the lower level is (all I can see is fans of sidings all over the place) and how passenger trains get from it to the upper level.

 

To me a layout has a place in the greater scheme of things: stations and goods yards were built in the places they were put because they had a purpose and connected with traffic flows (people, goods) to other places which had a demand.  This is why lots of layouts have "fiddle yards" which represent these sources and destinations, so the visible bit has the purpose of building coal trains for "X" or stripping out goods for "Y" from larger trains, and then releasing the main train before forwarding the "cut" up a branch (real or imagined).  I think you chose not to have hidden "fiddle" areas - but I'd have to re-read everything to check how we got here.

 

I'm the one who should be stressed about this, not my support network - don't worry - you are right it is what I wanted and I do believe its 95% right and that a tweak rather than a rethink is the issue BUT I cant get away from the reach issue of the upper area which will only get worse

 

The visual linkage is clearly an issue for all but I do want a port/wharf and don't want yet more retaining walls - my last post re reducing the upper baseboard may still present the compromise that the 9*7 shed imposes

 

This debate wont go on for long as those of you who know me know I always need to move on!!

 

J

[halsey]

I have just re-read all the recent posts and am wondering whether my real issue is that I don't believe in it enough and that perhaps my use of Peco backdrops has contributed to this but they do work in a quirky nostalgic way which I felt/feel comfortable with.

 

To aid my thought processes over the next few days what alternative back scenes should I be reviewing my dilemma is having bought one a long time ago when this all started was that its photographic quality set the challenge of a level of modelling that I wasn't up to - superquick models are at about my level of realism

 

The reach issue may still have to prevail but the hard won operational ability in such a small space is a prize not to be lightly given up.

 

The decision is made that the backdrop based port has got to go - I will create an urban canal wharf instead! - no back scenes seem to exist so it will have to be another dreaded retaining wall!

 

All comments are helping................

 

J

[Chimer]

I have just read through from the beginning (!) - didn't we have fun?  All those pages about power feeds and IRJs at the terminus, and now you're going to reduce it to a single platform or something - sacrilege!!

 

I have also at last realised that it was the fiddle yard you turned into a station last summer, not the goods yard - so at least I can visualise the starting point.  I can't come up with any bright ideas yet ....... but I am thinking.

 

DCB has a theory that in most cases in the real world, access to a railway platform from bus stop or car park via the ticket office is usually on the level, so "ground level" is platform level and the tracks are below ground level - he's suggesting, therefore, that you raise ground level accordingly.  I remember a thread debating this at some length with, inevitably, pictures showing that every statement on the subject could be conclusively shown to be wrong (and right) ...... but I didn't contribute, so can't find it.

 

Back as soon as (if) my brain whirrs into action.

 

Chris

[Zomboid]

So if you want to keep the operation potential of the terminus, consider some hands-free uncoupling options.

Personally I use kadees, but my trainset is US HO so they're the obvious choice. For you to do something like that would be quite a financial commitment, so instead I would look at whatever the options with tension locks are. Beyond the old fashioned sprung ramps I don't know what the options are, but if you can find one you like, that should eliminate most of the reasons why you'd need to reach over there, so should help with access.

 

Though tbh, if the low level freight ops and a DMU up the ramp will satisfy your needs, ditching the station wouldn't be the end of the world.

 

I think you need a big old testing session on that basis - shuffle wagons downstairs and run a shuttle passenger train from your station round and up the hill, don't shunt it there, just bring it back down when you're ready to. You'll find out that way if it's enough for you. And you get to play trains rather than talk to a computer, what's not to like?

Edited October 17, 2017 by Zomboid

[imt]

So if you want to keep the operation potential of the terminus, consider some hands-free uncoupling options.........I would look at whatever the options with tension locks are. Beyond the old fashioned sprung ramps I don't know what the options are, but if you can find one you like, that should eliminate most of the reasons why you'd need to reach over there, so should help with access.

 

 

There are ways of doing magnetic uncoupling with tension locks - it involves "sticking" closed staples at right angles on the down droppers of the hooks and using magnets to repel them - hence lifting the hooks.

 

There is a video here - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kbk9xo19un8&pbjreload=10 - but I haven't found the simple instruction sheet I once had.

 

Another method without adaptions is: 

 

 

Edit: found it on RMweb archive: http://www.rmweb.co.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=35605&start=50

Edited October 17, 2017 by imt

[halsey]

There are ways of doing magnetic uncoupling with tension locks - it involves "sticking" closed staples at right angles on the down droppers of the hooks and using magnets to repel them - hence lifting the hooks.

 

There is a video here - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kbk9xo19un8&pbjreload=10 - but I haven't found the simple instruction sheet I once had.

 

Another method without adaptions is: 

 

 

Edit: found it on RMweb archive: http://www.rmweb.co.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=35605&start=50

 

Thanks all - I'm away tomorrow so I will give this a look and also review any new content received by my return - I don't like the idea of remote uncoupling preferring the "hand of god" (remember my dental probe!!)

 

BUT limited use just where the reach is an issue could be worthwhile.

 

J

[ejstubbs]

Bear in mind that the staples modification (which is widely known as the "Brian Kirby method", after the man who invented it - see page one of the link that imt posted) requires that the coupling hooks themselves not be magnetic.  I think you have already mentioned that some of your stock has the old, riveted on type of coupling hook which I'm pretty sure means that the hooks on those couplings will turn out to be made from a magnetic material.  The one type of tension lock coupling which is reliably known to have a non-magnetic hook is the Bachmann one.

 

What this means is that you could be faced with changing the couplings on a lot of your stock, which would be time-consuming and fiddly, and would cost money.  Not as much as switching to Kadees throughout, but unless you can find a generous soul who started down the Brian Kirby route and then decided to follow a different path, and who would be prepared to donate their unused Bachmann couplings FOC* then money will likely need to change hands.

 

I also strongly suspect that coupling hooks modified for the Brain Kirby method won't work quite so well (if at all) with an uncoupling paddle, which is what I think you mean by "the hand of god".

 

* Like me, perhaps?  Drop me a personal message through RMWeb if you would like to discuss further.

[halsey]

Bear in mind that the staples modification (which is widely known as the "Brian Kirby method", after the man who invented it - see page one of the link that imt posted) requires that the coupling hooks themselves not be magnetic.  I think you have already mentioned that some of your stock has the old, riveted on type of coupling hook which I'm pretty sure means that the hooks on those couplings will turn out to be made from a magnetic material.  The one type of tension lock coupling which is reliably known to have a non-magnetic hook is the Bachmann one.

 

What this means is that you could be faced with changing the couplings on a lot of your stock, which would be time-consuming and fiddly, and would cost money.  Not as much as switching to Kadees throughout, but unless you can find a generous soul who started down the Brian Kirby route and then decided to follow a different path, and who would be prepared to donate their unused Bachmann couplings FOC* then money will likely need to change hands.

 

I also strongly suspect that coupling hooks modified for the Brain Kirby method won't work quite so well (if at all) with an uncoupling paddle, which is what I think you mean by "the hand of god".

 

* Like me, perhaps?  Drop me a personal message through RMWeb if you would like to discuss further.

 

not so - my "hand of god" interpretation is a manual hook which I like - all of my stock having now been "converted" to single hook coupling

[MikeOxon]

Happy to oblige - these are "bare" with all scenery, buildings and some back scene elements removed to aid my thinking and are taken moving clockwise

 

Hope it helps................

 

I have taken the liberty of 'stitching together' your photos, to provide a better visualisation of your whole layout, which might be useful to your support team

 

For anyone interested, I used the Microsoft Image Composite Editor, which is a free download from Microsoft (actually, I had to stitch the 2nd pic manually, since there were insufficient overlaps between the original images)

 

 

 

If you'd like to take some more photos, with the buildings in place, I'll be happy to repeat the exercise (or have a go yourself!)

 

Mike

[ejstubbs]

not so - my "hand of god" interpretation is a manual hook which I like - all of my stock having now been "converted" to single hook coupling

 

I stand happily corrected on that point.  That would be less likely to be impeded by the Brian Kirby staples, then.

 

My offer of Bachmann couplings for Kirby-isation is still open, if you would be able to put them to good use.  (I even have a more or less unused pack of the PH Designs etchings for Bachmann couplings which were intended to make the conversion of the couplings themselves easier.)

[halsey]

Hi all,

 

Could I please have some input on BACKSCENES having decided that the "port under the branch" isn't right and realised that a number of you don't like my backscenes I would like some suggestions please

 

Using Mikes panoramas and keeping the theme pretty much the same what else can I use???

 

Thanks 

[Chimer]

OK ...... I think the basic problem you have with backscenes (and I have never got to the backscene stage myself, so what would I know) is that in most places your outside track is too close to them.  My thinking is that for printed and even more so photographic backscenes to work well, you need some 3-D scenery between them and the railway.  If that's not possible, stick to blue/grey sky and clouds.  And I think that's even more so where the outside track is rising or at a higher level than the foreground tracks - where the retaining wall provides the backscene for the foreground.  To (probably mis)quote CJF, "a grimy retaining wall is the best background for a train".  Probably the only really suitable place for a printed backscene as things stand (stood?) is behind the high-level terminus.

 

The bigger question - is it now time to plan for a radical change?  Is what you now want, what you really really want, a railway which is, visually and operationally, more realistic than the high-play-value "train set" you initially wanted and produced so successfully, having so much fun, over the last two winters?  Because a terminus to fiddle-yard U-shaped layout, possibly including a mostly-hidden continuous run with a simple un-sceniced plank across the doorway, will fit perfectly well into the space available.  The terminus could be rural or inner-city ( I won't say "Minories" 'cos we really don't need another debate about reverse curves on the approach, but that sort of thing).

 

I really don't think incremental development of the current track-plan, and fiddling around the edges of the scenery, is going to satisfy you long-term.  But don't demolish until you have an outline plan for Mk 2!

 

Hey ho ......

 

Chris

[ejstubbs]

To my mind the only backscene that really jarred was the one below the branch terminus, that made it look as if it was floating in the sky.  Replace that with (another) retaining wall and it would look a lot less odd.  That could turn the "port" in to a canal spur specifically built to allow freight interchange with the railway.  I reckon you could lose the bit of canal that goes parallel to the high-level terminus altogether, and instead have the entrance to a canal tunnel disappearing off under the terminus, leaving just the bit next to the operating well as the freight wharf.

 

Some of the rural backscenes may be a tad close to the rails to look realistic but it might be possible to disguise that eg with a length of dry stone wall such as this, this or this at the base of the backscene (maybe cut down to half thickness to fit in the available space - bonus: it covers twice the length that way!)

Edited October 19, 2017 by ejstubbs