YesTor Posted December 15, 2016 Author Share Posted December 15, 2016 With regard to operational interest, I don't find that more track always equals more interest - for me, having less track means more thinking about what I'm doing. That's just my experience... I would think about how you will actually operate the layout though - if you're like me and only have a spare 45-60 minutes (or less) at a time to play trains then packing the board with track won't necessarily increase your enjoyment. Also, what do you enjoy? If you're a structure builder, then you'll want space on the layout for structures. If you like creating scenery then the same applies. If you're an operator then you may want something different, and something different again if building rolling stock is your thing. Finally, if you're building a modern freight terminal, pretty much all the track will have a purpose. It never happens in the real world that the designer says "look, there's a bit of flat ground, let's put another siding on it". Some good points indeed. I guess my hunger for 'more track' originates from my early modelling experiences as a youngster, and memories of never quite having enough space for the length of trains I wanted, and then never having enough track even if I did have the space. So I guess now I'm 'grown up' that I'm keen to avoid a repeat of those frustrating feelings. But still, I'm right with you on the "less is more" approach, as it's very often the layouts at exhibitions with the least amount of trackwork in a seemingly generous space that hold my fascination most of all. I think it's the admiration for the obvious and probably strict restraint exercised in the design of such sparse trackplans, and the fact that they often end up looking far more realistic overall then a board simply crammed with as much track as possible. I'm not saying any of your ideas are wrong, just trying to be thought provoking, since a layout this size is quite an undertaking and you wouldn't want to end up with something unsatisfying. Sure, totally fine, that's exactly why I started the topic, as left by myself I'd only be fighting the demon within that simply wants 'more track'. At the moment it feels like a learning process of coming up with a plan, taking in these comments and alternative viewpoints, chewing thoughts over, huffing and puffing for a bit, revising the plan, and ultimately learning a little self-restraint along the way. And as you say, hopefully by the end of the process I'll have something satisfying. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
YesTor Posted February 4, 2017 Author Share Posted February 4, 2017 To completely mess up your plan, why don't you switch the aggregates loading area with the station? This would mean that a) you would have an excuse for an extra line through your station (which could possibly have your refueling point on as well) to allow goods trains through while a passenger train was parked up, and b) you could then have your fan of sidings with the PO shunter as Nearholmer suggested. Okay, it's been a while, but here as suggested is the plan with the station and freight sidings switched around. I do quite like the run-through station, although somehow I'm not quite sure if the arrangement of the sidings at the far right is as useful as it could perhaps be. Maybe this area could be improved in some way? Again, suggestions/criticism most welcome. Oh, and the uppermost siding and attached spur on the far right would most likely be used for stabling locos between duties. Again, maybe this could be improved upon too? The other thing that strikes me is that everything is now looking very 'straight'/parallel to the board edges. I think in this respect I prefer the earlier plans with their more 'flowing'/curvier lines. Thoughts? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grovenor Posted February 4, 2017 Share Posted February 4, 2017 Looking through this I don't see the scale/gauge mentioned anywhere, is it going to be built in N gauge? Regards Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Satan's Goldfish Posted February 4, 2017 Share Posted February 4, 2017 My thoughts on D; Ditch the front siding on the right with the loader leaving just 3 long sidings at the end of the layout. Move the loader to the back to where the short grey stub siding is, then continue that line under the bridge and join it to the long siding opposite the station platform. This will give you lots of operational options shunting wagons and space to run trains slowly under the loader without blocking any of the running lines. The loops beside the platform can be used to run around the wagons and you have the option of the stub siding at the far left or the head of the right hand sidings to stable locos between duties. A private shunter could be used to draw wagons through the loader (train arrives into top right-hand siding, shunter draws wagons through loader into top left hand siding, then shunts loaded wagons around the loader into middle or bottom right hand siding.) Passenger trains can run as multiple-unit shuttles, although unprototypical as previously mentioned you could also use the right hand sidings to move a multiple unit out of the platform then back into one of the loops opposite the platform between turns to allow other trains to use the platform. Also creates an easy run-around for loco hauled specials or network rail track maintenance services (set of 5 auto-ballasters and 37 perhaps?) I definitely prefer the D arrangement to the A-C plans. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
YesTor Posted February 4, 2017 Author Share Posted February 4, 2017 Looking through this I don't see the scale/gauge mentioned anywhere, is it going to be built in N gauge? Regards Ahh okay, it's OO scale... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
YesTor Posted February 4, 2017 Author Share Posted February 4, 2017 My thoughts on D Ditch the front siding on the right with the loader leaving just 3 long sidings at the end of the layout. Move the loader to the back to where the short grey stub siding is, then continue that line under the bridge and join it to the long siding opposite the station platform. This will give you lots of operational options shunting wagons and space to run trains slowly under the loader without blocking any of the running lines. The loops beside the platform can be used to run around the wagons and you have the option of the stub siding at the far left or the head of the right hand sidings to stable locos between duties. A private shunter could be used to draw wagons through the loader (train arrives into top right-hand siding, shunter draws wagons through loader into top left hand siding, then shunts loaded wagons around the loader into middle or bottom right hand siding.) Hmmm, that's definitely an interesting thought. I'll have a further jiggle around and see what I can come up with... Passenger trains can run as multiple-unit shuttles, although unprototypical as previously mentioned you could also use the right hand sidings to move a multiple unit out of the platform then back into one of the loops opposite the platform between turns to allow other trains to use the platform. Also creates an easy run-around for loco hauled specials or network rail track maintenance services (set of 5 auto-ballasters and 37 perhaps?) I definitely prefer the D arrangement to the A-C plans. Yes indeed, that has always been the idea with the loops adjacent to the station (even with Plans A-C), in that they can be multi-pupose for holding either freight trains after loading and prior to departure, multiple units or/and motive power in between duties, and as you also say engineers trains, or even the odd rake of coaches. I'm not sure if I'm alone in this but I find one or two loops far more enjoyable/versatile to operate with than the equivalent number of sidings. Sidings can often feel restrictive - especially if very short - whereas loops open up the operating interest somewhat more. Anyway, I'll play around with your first suggestion and post my results. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Satan's Goldfish Posted February 4, 2017 Share Posted February 4, 2017 Hmmm, that's definitely an interesting thought. I'll have a further jiggle around and see what I can come up with... Yes indeed, that has always been the idea with the loops adjacent to the station (even with Plans A-C), in that they can be multi-pupose for holding either freight trains after loading and prior to departure, multiple units or/and motive power in between duties, and as you also say engineers trains, or even the odd rake of coaches. I'm not sure if I'm alone in this but I find one or two loops far more enjoyable/versatile to operate with than the equivalent number of sidings. Sidings can often feel restrictive - especially if very short - whereas loops open up the operating interest somewhat more. Anyway, I'll play around with your first suggestion and post my results. Additional to my comments on D; you were worried about being too parallel to the board edge, the suggestions I made would mean the track that is now at the back with loader on has to vary between a 3 track width at the right and a 4 track width at the left which helps break everything being parallel with the front. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium JDW Posted February 4, 2017 RMweb Premium Share Posted February 4, 2017 And if the gap through the bridge were narrower, the line for the loader would have to have a gentle curve towards the front as it passed underneath. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Chimer Posted February 5, 2017 RMweb Premium Share Posted February 5, 2017 You haven't mentioned why you're restricting yourself to a foot, but I'll assume there's some non-negotiable planning constraint involved ..... but ...... might you be able to store scenic boards, a few inches wide, under the fixed boards when out of use, to be brought out and attached to the front when operational? This could allow you to develop things like station approach roads and extra industrial bits around the loading area. Just a thought, as after a change of layout location I've just added just an inch down one side of my tiny roundy-roundy, and six inches on the inside, cutting down the op well, which have made (will make) it possible to improve the scenic side enormously (I hope), without changing the track layout at all. Cheers Chris Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rivercider Posted February 5, 2017 Share Posted February 5, 2017 To me plan D looks like the rationalised remains of a line that once went on further, but as it stands any shunting/loading moves take place on what looks like the old main line. If I understand it, SGs suggestion of putting the loader at the back means all yard work takes place clear of the 'main' line so DMUs charters or engineering trains can arrive, reverse and stable without interference from aggregates traffic. In the aggregates sidings trains can arrive, be loaded and stable clear of the main lines, which looks better to me, cheers Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grovenor Posted February 5, 2017 Share Posted February 5, 2017 Ahh okay, it's OO scale... Then 5 tracks across in one foot width does not leave any room for scenics, storage area shown in PIc has tracks spaced alternately at 6ft and 10ft intervals and just fits. Regards Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
YesTor Posted February 8, 2017 Author Share Posted February 8, 2017 You haven't mentioned why you're restricting yourself to a foot, but I'll assume there's some non-negotiable planning constraint involved ..... but ...... might you be able to store scenic boards, a few inches wide, under the fixed boards when out of use, to be brought out and attached to the front when operational? This could allow you to develop things like station approach roads and extra industrial bits around the loading area. The baseboard width can be only 12" maximum width due to available space. That's a nice idea though to add additional scenic width. I'll give that option some thought too, thanks. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
YesTor Posted February 8, 2017 Author Share Posted February 8, 2017 Then 5 tracks across in one foot width does not leave any room for scenics, storage area shown in PIc has tracks spaced alternately at 6ft and 10ft intervals and just fits. DSCF0500.JPG Regards Agreed, this is something I am increasingly mindful of. Ultimately I figure I'll need to see what works 'in the flesh', but I'm banking on four tracks maximum at any one point, and if I feel happy to make the reduction to three without losing too much operating interest then better still. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
YesTor Posted February 8, 2017 Author Share Posted February 8, 2017 Ditch the front siding on the right with the loader leaving just 3 long sidings at the end of the layout. Move the loader to the back to where the short grey stub siding is, then continue that line under the bridge and join it to the long siding opposite the station platform. Okay, as suggested by Satan's Goldfish we now have Plan E... A slight curvature to the end sidings and subtle angles to the positioning of the loader and bridge and I think that detracts just enough from the parallel-looking Plan D in order to add a more 'flowing' feel to the overall plan. I'm quite liking this arrangement so far. Again any suggestions for improvements gratefully received... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
YesTor Posted February 8, 2017 Author Share Posted February 8, 2017 And just to stir things up a little, and to address my only niggle with Plan E - being that there is still no real dedicated space for the stabling of traction - and we have Plan F below. I'm conscious that four sidings on the rightmost end and a small fueling point may just be squeezing things a little tight, but then again maybe this is something I will have to play around with in 3D to see if it works.Still, my biggest doubt is perhaps toward the double-slip? I figure that you guys will scream that this is truly unprototypical for being present at the end of such a route and of course in the modern age of rationalisation. But still, it does mean that there is now dedicated space for traction and the additional spur seems quite nice/useful. Reactions? Thoughts? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
andi4x4 Posted February 8, 2017 Share Posted February 8, 2017 Hi YT, Re: the fueling point - could you shorten the stabling siding and put the tanks at the end of the siding ? The actual refueling stand itself is not very wide (whichever make you choose), but the tanks are quite large. Another option may be to use the lowermost siding for stabling and refueling as you have plenty of space along side the points cluster near the bridge. You could even put the tanks and refueling point on a separate 'clip-on' scenic section, as previously suggested. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
YesTor Posted February 8, 2017 Author Share Posted February 8, 2017 Re: the fueling point - could you shorten the stabling siding and put the tanks at the end of the siding ? The actual refueling stand itself is not very wide (whichever make you choose), but the tanks are quite large. Hehe, you must have read my mind, as I was just sitting here gazing at the plan and thinking the very same thoughts! Yes, that does seem a sensible suggestion indeed. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Satan's Goldfish Posted February 8, 2017 Share Posted February 8, 2017 E looks good, but I agree with your thoughts on F looking crowded at the moment. How many engines do you want to be able to stable and refuel on scene? Shortening the siding and putting the tanks at the end would help it look less crowded. (Refueling also gives you another short freight flow; tankers!) I'm not convinced on moving stabling to the front siding, I think that the long sidings with block rakes of wagons in will be visually impressive and putting fuel tanks and locos at the front will break that view. How about changing the double slip to a single slip and have the sidings point ladder in a line like E rather than split like F? Because when is a train ever going to go from the loader into the refueling siding? And the arrangement at E looks more flowing with the points in a line given the space you have. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
YesTor Posted February 11, 2017 Author Share Posted February 11, 2017 E looks good, but I agree with your thoughts on F looking crowded at the moment. How many engines do you want to be able to stable and refuel on scene? Hmmm, well, I guess like most modellers I have more locomotives than I'll ever truly need, so it would be nice to be able to have at least a few on display at any one time... Shortening the siding and putting the tanks at the end would help it look less crowded. (Refueling also gives you another short freight flow; tankers!) Yes, I'm in agreement here too - tankers at the end will be much better; and likewise that the small fuelling facility will of course provide an excuse for more variety of visiting traffic. I'm not convinced on moving stabling to the front siding, I think that the long sidings with block rakes of wagons in will be visually impressive and putting fuel tanks and locos at the front will break that view. Again agreed, this was my initial feeling too, and besides I would rather keep as many structures toward the rear anyway in order to avoid the danger of (my) clumsy elbows etc... How about changing the double slip to a single slip and have the sidings point ladder in a line like E rather than split like F? Because when is a train ever going to go from the loader into the refueling siding? And the arrangement at E looks more flowing with the points in a line given the space you have. Single-slip is a good suggestion. Plan E does indeed appear more flowing. I think if I go with Plan F then I'm going to simply have to play around in 3D and see whether four tracks in one-foot space will be too crammed, and if so perhaps settle for three tracks. I really can't see an alternative though for a stabling point, other than randomly parking locos in any free loop or siding as and when... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jongudmund Posted February 11, 2017 Share Posted February 11, 2017 I think trying to add in the stabling point is a bit much. I really like plan E because you can have a shunter moving wagons about while the big traction waits for the empties to be filled (how are you going to manage that by the way?) but I'm not sure they would have a fueling point in with the industry unless the branch line is really long and the engine has worked up a thirst. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.