Design Ideas welcome

[Tallpaul69]

I am starting this new thread to avoid complicating my existing threads "Nearly Maidenhead" and "To DCC or not?".

 

Before committing to my current plan being built,  I want to give all those who have found fault with it chance to wow me with their ideas that I have not thought of.

 

So here are my requirements

 

Must have:-

00 gauge

Fit 12ftx8ft room with standard size door opening OUTWARDS in one 8ft wall 5ft from start of corner.

WR 1960-62 but would like to use the stock I have that suits 1992 and 2016.

Thus must be outside the overhead electrified areas.

Happy to model frelght/relief lines only 

Have stock for most named trains but am willing to sell those not needed

Single level, round and round preferred

Want to be able to sit and watch the trains go by while shunting a few sidings

Baseboards, track and electrics will be assembled by a professional builder.

I will build scenery.

Prefer to view from a levelish position say 5ft baseboards

hate "helicopter" view of trains 

 

Do not need

Station

Engine shed

 

Prefer

DCC and some sound

Mimic diagram on Laptop

Separate DCC supply for points and signals

Kadee couplings currently under investigation

Turntable not a must

 

Generally stock and locomotives  are not a problem for the eras listed

 

Please ask for any information I have not provided!

 

Cheers

Paul

 

 

[Harlequin]

Hi Paul,

 

Minimum curve radii in scenic and non-scenic areas?

 

Can you measure the room and tell us the dimensions and door position to the nearest, say, half inch or centimetre?

 

Edit: Do you imagine your scenic areas being countryside or townscape (or parts of both) and do you imagine dense trackwork in the scenic areas or simpler railway-in-the-landscape?

 

Edit 2: What number of storage loops/sidings in the fiddle yard are needed to store the longest trains while they are not running (realistically) and how long is your longest train (realistically)?

 

Edited March 1, 2019 by Harlequin

[Tallpaul69]

33 minutes ago, Harlequin said:

Hi Paul,

 

Minimum curve radii in scenic and non-scenic areas?

 

Can you measure the room and tell us the dimensions and door position to the nearest, say, half inch or centimetre?

 

Edit: Do you imagine your scenic areas being countryside or townscape (or parts of both) and do you imagine dense trackwork in the scenic areas or simpler railway-in-the-landscape?

 

Edit 2: What number of storage loops/sidings in the fiddle yard are needed to store the longest trains while they are not running (realistically) and how long is your longest train (realistically)?

 

OK Phil:-

 

I am trying not to box forum members into the same conclusion I have already reached as that would be a waste of everyone's time

However ,answering your points as generally as possible (apart from the dimensions asked for):-

 

Minimum curve in scenic 3ft

Minimum curve in non scenic 2ft 6 ins

 

Sorry, I thought I had told you the room dimensions:-

12ft x 8ft is what I measured it at a few months ago, don't think it will have shrunk, but lets say 11ft 10 ins x 7ft 11 ins for safety?

If you are looking at a plan of the room then the door is in the left hand wall and is 11 inches from the top corner and 58 inches from the bottom corner. Remember it opens OUTWARDS, not into the room.

 

The railway has to be interesting to operate. By this I am not talking about the number of switches that have to be thrown to set up a route, I mean that an interesting variety of trains can be run, with facilities for overtaking , detaching wagons and shunting these. A branch (but not a one engine in steam, no variety of train branch) would be good.

 

Scenery preferred urban or mixed urban/country.

 

The number of storage loops depends on the scenic side track layout and whether or not there is a branch.

I think the minimum would be 4 up, 4 down, 4 branch(if there is a branch) with the up and down loops preferably able to hold a long train (say engine plus 5 off 64ft carriages and freights of the equivalent length and a short train say engine  plus two coaches and short freights of equivalent length. If there is a branch the trains should be engine + 2x 57ft coaches and freights of equivalent length.

However the 4s could be 3s if longer loops to hold 3 trains instead of 4 trains can be accommodated.

 

The trains are not  fixed entities, but will be designed to reflect the traffic on the line, so asking how long trains must be is difficult to answer until people give me ideas!

 

Hope the above helps?

 

Many thanks

Paul

[Harlequin]

Paul,

 

I don't believe for a moment that the room is exactly 12ft by 8ft - that's why I asked for measurements. Is that difficult?

 

[Tallpaul69]

Sorry Phil,

As I do not have a laser distance measurer, or a 12ft tape, I cannot promise a precise measurement, but I will, at the first opportunity I have, which will be tomorrow afternoon try to measure the room as accurately as I can with my 10ft tape .

Maybe I should take measurements each end and the middle and quote you the average to try to take out of the situation any variation due to bumps in the walls?

 

I thought my suggestion to take two inches off the length and one inch off the width would be sufficient, to ensure you are not making a suggestion which is too big for the room, but hey what do I know!!

 

I will also remeasure the doorway position.

 

You are trying to do me a favour so I will try to give you the information you need.

 

Best regards

Paul

[DCB]

5 ft is going to need a bar stool to sit on to shunt. I use to sit on a step ladder to operate my layout which was 60" / 5ft ish  from floor to track surface, banged my head on the light a couple of times.  My layout was 9ft X 8ft approx,  The doorway had a lift out section with the strength member above the tracks and only approx 3/4" of material below the tracks so it had 5ft clearance below  which is an easy duck under.  It came out for access to the airing cupboard but stayed in when I ducked under to get a coffee etc during a running session..  My layout was a wall hugger and only about 18" wide at most.

With 8 ft nominal width that's 30" plus 30" layout plus 36" operating well. I operate an 8ft nominal wide layout and the 40" nominal operating well is too tight for two people to operate back to back or even squeeze past at times   12 ft is two 30" radius curves plus 7 feet straight, or 2 X 2ft and 8ft so with points about 7 1/2" or 9" long your loops are going to be mighty short if you have 12 of them!

I would look to expand a 6X4 layout plan, or have a junction station one side with steep grade to a terminus at high level the other side above the storage loops  if going DC or scrap the terminus and go DCC with open loops.  If you only have a few locos you might get away with DCC and hidden loops but remembering or recording which loco is in which loop will be challenging if you have a big fleet of Green 4-6-0s!

[Tallpaul69]

18 hours ago, Harlequin said:

Paul,

 

I don't believe for a moment that the room is exactly 12ft by 8ft - that's why I asked for measurements. Is that difficult?

 

OK, Phil,

Here are the latest measurements:-

Least of three measurements of length:- 12ft and 3/4 of an inch

Least of three measurements of width 8ft 1and 1/4 inch

I took  the three measurements at each end and in the middle of the room. The larger measurements were between 1/4 inch and 3/4 inch greater.

 

I also remeasured the door. This is  10 and 3/4 inches from the top long wall in the left hand side wall and the opening in the plastered wall is 32 inches wide. Remember the door opens outwards and the door furniture is within the width of the wall so does not protrude into the room.

 

Best regards

Paul

 

l

[Tallpaul69]

15 hours ago, DavidCBroad said:

5 ft is going to need a bar stool to sit on to shunt. I use to sit on a step ladder to operate my layout which was 60" / 5ft ish  from floor to track surface, banged my head on the light a couple of times.  My layout was 9ft X 8ft approx,  The doorway had a lift out section with the strength member above the tracks and only approx 3/4" of material below the tracks so it had 5ft clearance below  which is an easy duck under.  It came out for access to the airing cupboard but stayed in when I ducked under to get a coffee etc during a running session..  My layout was a wall hugger and only about 18" wide at most.

With 8 ft nominal width that's 30" plus 30" layout plus 36" operating well. I operate an 8ft nominal wide layout and the 40" nominal operating well is too tight for two people to operate back to back or even squeeze past at times   12 ft is two 30" radius curves plus 7 feet straight, or 2 X 2ft and 8ft so with points about 7 1/2" or 9" long your loops are going to be mighty short if you have 12 of them!

I would look to expand a 6X4 layout plan, or have a junction station one side with steep grade to a terminus at high level the other side above the storage loops  if going DC or scrap the terminus and go DCC with open loops.  If you only have a few locos you might get away with DCC and hidden loops but remembering or recording which loco is in which loop will be challenging if you have a big fleet of Green 4-6-0s!

Thanks for the input David,

Answering a few of your points:-

I have the bar stool x 2! But sometimes I prefer to stand.

Lights are fluorescents just below ceiling, so no danger of banging my head!

Don't need access for anything else in the room so no need for a lift out section. I agree with you about ducking under.

Fair point about the width of the operating well.

Current plan I am considering has points for loops on short sides of layout and on the curves which gives you longer loops but limits the amount of scenery you can have on the short sides of the layout.

Sorry, not keen on gradients especially steep ones, and a terminus is not on my want list. When I talked about a branch I meant just the junction with the main line and the start of a single line on the flat leading to a small separate fiddle yard.

I agree with you that hidden loops are fine until there is a problem. One possible solution to what is where is CCTV.

 

Keep the ideas rolling guys,

 

Many thanks

Paul

[Harlequin]

2 hours ago, Tallpaul69 said:

OK, Phil,

Here are the latest measurements:-

Least of three measurements of length:- 12ft and 3/4 of an inch

Least of three measurements of width 8ft 1and 1/4 inch

I took  the three measurements at each end and in the middle of the room. The larger measurements were between 1/4 inch and 3/4 inch greater.

 

I also remeasured the door. This is  10 and 3/4 inches from the top long wall in the left hand side wall and the opening in the plastered wall is 32 inches wide. Remember the door opens outwards and the door furniture is within the width of the wall so does not protrude into the room.

 

Best regards

Paul

 

l

Thanks Paul,

 

Here's the room accurately to scale using your dimensions with a 1ft grid and some double-track guide radii - red 2ft6, magenta 3ft, orange about 2ft9.

 

You can probably see that it would be easier to fit things in, especially the storage loops, if you could relax your minimum radii requirements. 2ft min radius in the non-scenic areas would be OK (and bear in mind that the inner radius of a Peco Streamline curved point is 28in).

 

Could you be persuaded to have some gradients rising gradually to some high level tracks, similar to what David is suggesting. Here's why I ask:

• The low viewing angle means that tracks towards the outside of the room on the same level will be somewhat hidden behind all the stuff in front. If the outside tracks were rising above the inner tracks then you'd get a much better view of them and traffic on them. (Think amphitheatre.)
• The size of the room and the minimum radii you require make it difficult to fit all the storage on the main level, so by rising to another level you'd get some extra space for storage.

What I'm thinking of is a 1:50 gradient or shallower rising around the outside of the room to a simple storage shelf above the main level storage tracks. The high level storage would be non-scenic, only 2-4 tracks wide and so would not impede access to the main storage below it, no need for CCTV.

 

Edited March 2, 2019 by Harlequin

[Tallpaul69]

2 hours ago, Harlequin said:

Thanks Paul,

 

Here's the room accurately to scale using your dimensions with a 1ft grid and some double-track guide radii - red 2ft6, magenta 3ft, orange about 2ft9.

 

You can probably see that it would be easier to fit things in, especially the storage loops, if you could relax your minimum radii requirements. 2ft min radius in the non-scenic areas would be OK (and bear in mind that the inner radius of a Peco Streamline curved point is 28in).

 

Could you be persuaded to have some gradients rising gradually to some high level tracks, similar to what David is suggesting. Here's why I ask:

• The low viewing angle means that tracks towards the outside of the room on the same level will be somewhat hidden behind all the stuff in front. If the outside tracks were rising above the inner tracks then you'd get a much better view of them and traffic on them. (Think amphitheatre.)
• The size of the room and the minimum radii you require make it difficult to fit all the storage on the main level, so by rising to another level you'd get some extra space for storage.

What I'm thinking of is a 1:50 gradient or shallower rising around the outside of the room to a simple storage shelf above the main level storage tracks. The high level storage would be non-scenic, only 2-4 tracks wide and so would not impede access to the main storage below it, no need for CCTV.

 

Thanks Phil,

I'm fine with sharper radii, its just that I lost count in previous threads of the number of folk telling me that radii of less than 3ft for scenic and 2ft6ins for non scenic were the minimum acceptable for a real model!

As for gradients, I think 1:50, might work, shallow than that certainly would. for additional loops.

Its only a steep incline to a terminus that I'm not keen on !

 

Best regards

Paul

[Harlequin]

Hi Paul,

 

Here's an idea, then. I think it hits most of your requirements but there's room for improvement. (And there are some tricky areas that I haven't resolved yet.)

 

The idea for the scenic area is a dedicated goods yard just down the line from where a double track branch leaves the mainline. You'll notice it's quite pared back compared to your sketches and that's mainly because of the restrictions of the radii within the space.

 

• Min radius non-scenic: 610mm (2ft).
• Min radius scenic (mainline and branch): 762mm (2ft6in).
• I have thinned the trackwork down near the door so that the duck-under is easier to get through.
• The scenic area is opposite the door so that you see it when you open the door and as soon as you emerge from the duck-under, rather than seeing the fiddle yard.
• The branch line rises at the back of the scenic area. It looks a bit straight and boring but with the main scene in front and scenic elements obscuring it every now and then I think it would look quite natural.
• The main line has a slightly more organic curve than the branch.
• Notice that the operating well is generous!
• The idea is that the storage loops store two trains each but the pointwork limits the length of some and they are a little inflexible at the moment. Some crossovers are needed.
• There are two crossovers in the main line - one trailing and one facing, which is "hidden" in the the branch junction.
• The relationship between the branchline exit from the scenic area, the mainline tunnel and the goods yard needs some very careful treatment so that it doesn't look odd.

Edited March 3, 2019 by Harlequin

[south_tyne]

Paul,

 

Firstly, you have an absolutely fantastic space there, something many of us can only dream of (not that I am jealous at all! ).

 

There is some sound advice above. Have you looked at some of Cyril Freezer's trackplan books for inspiration? I know some of them can be seen as old fashioned nowadays, with folk of dismissing them as out of date, but they are still relevant in my humble opinion and a great source of ideas. Many are based around spaces of a similar size to yours too. Granted, adjustments have to be made to modernise, principally I would say to ease the radius of curves, and sometimes gradients, with a need to be more gegenerous with the space afforded for points and crossings (he was sometimes a fan of the optimistic pencil!!). I still draw a lot of inspiration from them too and they can be the basis of a really good plan.

 

Good luck! 

David

[Tallpaul69]

13 hours ago, Harlequin said:

Hi Paul,

 

Here's an idea, then. I think it hits most of your requirements but there's room for improvement. (And there are some tricky areas that I haven't resolved yet.)

 

The idea for the scenic area is a dedicated goods yard just down the line from where a double track branch leaves the mainline. You'll notice it's quite pared back compared to your sketches and that's mainly because of the restrictions of the radii within the space.

 

• Min radius non-scenic: 610mm (2ft).
• Min radius scenic (mainline and branch): 762mm (2ft6in).
• I have thinned the trackwork down near the door so that the duck-under is easier to get through.
• The scenic area is opposite the door so that you see it when you open the door and as soon as you emerge from the duck-under, rather than seeing the fiddle yard.
• The branch line rises at the back of the scenic area. It looks a bit straight and boring but with the main scene in front and scenic elements obscuring it every now and then I think it would look quite natural.
• The main line has a slightly more organic curve than the branch.
• Notice that the operating well is generous!
• The idea is that the storage loops store two trains each but the pointwork limits the length of some and they are a little inflexible at the moment. Some crossovers are needed.
• There are two crossovers in the main line - one trailing and one facing, which is "hidden" in the the branch junction.
• The relationship between the branchline exit from the scenic area, the mainline tunnel and the goods yard needs some very careful treatment so that it doesn't look odd.

Thanks for this Phil,

I did not expect a viable result so soon, so well done! It just shows that if you know the software then you can soon produce a layout.

I need to look at this and see if I can amend my "Partly Maidenhead" timetable to provide interesting operation on it.

It has a lot of similar elements, so its a matter of working out how the trains that use elements that are different to this can be accommodated, or whether they can be omitted.

I agree there needs to be crossovers within the main fiddle yard, as I would want to be able to run the trains first clockwise, then anticlockwise to increase the time interval between trains repeating their initial runs.

I will send you details of any trains I cannot accommodate or alter or leave out, and see what you suggest?

 

Best regards

Paul

  

[Tallpaul69]

4 hours ago, south_tyne said:

Paul,

 

Firstly, you have an absolutely fantastic space there, something many of us can only dream of (not that I am jealous at all! ).

 

There is some sound advice above. Have you looked at some of Cyril Freezer's trackplan books for inspiration? I know some of them can be seen as old fashioned nowadays, with folk of dismissing them as out of date, but they are still relevant in my humble opinion and a great source of ideas. Many are based around spaces of a similar size to yours too. Granted, adjustments have to be made to modernise, principally I would say to ease the radius of curves, and sometimes gradients, with a need to be more gegenerous with the space afforded for points and crossings (he was sometimes a fan of the optimistic pencil!!). I still draw a lot of inspiration from them too and they can be the basis of a really good plan.

 

Good luck! 

David

Hi David,

Glad someone else thinks my space worthwhile!

Yes, my copies of all the Cyril Freezer books are well thumbed.

I agree with you that his radii and gradients were not to current thinking. Also some of his layouts were too tight in operating space and he gave little thought to access!

One of the problems I face is that I prefer to operate to a timetable, which is difficult to think up from scratch for this sort of layout. If I run a freight , I need it to run for a purpose, believing it is running from a real place to another real place, and the wagons dropped off or picked up in my layout need to be for a real traffic for that area.

This does mean that some wagons that I like, I cannot allow on the layout.

Saying that, I reserve the right to sit and watch the trains go by even if the same one makes 20 circuits one after the other!

I also want to be able to set a couple of trains running round and round while I do some shunting.

So if I start a timetable session, I might decide to hold it at a particular point and play trains, as the fancy takes me.

 

Best regards

Paul

[Tallpaul69]

1 hour ago, Tallpaul69 said:

Thanks for this Phil,

I did not expect a viable result so soon, so well done! It just shows that if you know the software then you can soon produce a layout.

I need to look at this and see if I can amend my "Partly Maidenhead" timetable to provide interesting operation on it.

It has a lot of similar elements, so its a matter of working out how the trains that use elements that are different to this can be accommodated, or whether they can be omitted.

I agree there needs to be crossovers within the main fiddle yard, as I would want to be able to run the trains first clockwise, then anticlockwise to increase the time interval between trains repeating their initial runs.

I will send you details of any trains I cannot accommodate or alter or leave out, and see what you suggest?

 

Best regards

Paul

  

My detailed points on Phils suggested layout:-

 

I have some comments on a preliminary look at using my Partly Maidenhead plan timetable on Phils suggestion:-

If up and down through lines in fiddle yard are also used to hold trains It will be possible to give as reasonable representation of the off peak up and down express, semi fast, and suburban passenger trains as was possible with Partly Maidenhead.

If up and down through lines in fiddle yard are also used to hold trains It will be possible to give as reasonable representation of the off peak  up and down through freight trains as was possible with Partly Maidenhead.

I would just have to "loose" 4 trains if I wanted to run a tail chasing session! 

Branch trains will be ok if storage at terminus can be increased (see below), and a run round included in the terminus area

There are however a few problems with trains that, in my opinion give the area a particular character.

These problems can be reduced if :-

The branch is made single track, with the second track providing a  necessary suburban carriage siding (from the junction end) and a siding from the terminus end with a stretch of single track in between.

A up loop can be fitted into the main line as there are 7-8 trains a day that drop off/ pick up from there.  The down loop is fine for the same number of trains per day that utilise that track.

One feature that I had in Partly Maidenhead, which I will be sad to give up is my double ended hidden coal sidings. These allowed full wagons to be dropped off, empty wagons picked up, and then the full wagons taken away from the far end of the siding hidden behind scenery and the empty wagons sneaked in! Sorry, but the giant hand in the sky taking coal loads in or out, is just not on!!  

 

Scenically, I think I would reduce the size of the operating well, to increase the scenic picture. I just cannot see the use of all that operating well space for what will mostly be a single person operation. It would be a shame to be short of space on the layout and have a space that will inevitably just fill up with junk, that having less space will force me to be disciplined and put away in my storage area!

In particular, I need to fit a row of houses between the up loop and the branch .

 

I tried not to be negative in the above, I did put the positive first, and suggest solutions to the problems!

 

So with a few tweaks we could have a positive outcome here!

 

Best regards

Paul

[Harlequin]

Hi Paul.

 

Negative points are fine. It's all a matter of give and take. This design was partly simply to get an idea of what would fit in the room. I'm digesting what you've said and I have some initial feedback for you.

 

No problem to replace one of the branch lines with a carriage siding near the junction (did I understand that correctly?) and single the rest. That may improve the character and the operations but unfortunately it doesn't help gain any space.

 

No problem with a run round loop in the terminus.

 

Would an up loop in the scenic area need some space in the goods yard on the up side of the mainline for loading and unloading? The advantages of leaving that side of the mainline clear are: Space (again) and less cluttered scenery behind, rising up to the branch line. Would a real goods yard span both sides of the mainline or would it more normally be on one side and rely on traffic crossing over? (Potentially more interesting operation.)

 

Please explain more about the double ended coal sidings. I don't understand where they are on your drawing of Partly Maidenhead.

 

The size of the operating well is mainly determined by the fans of points leading into the storage loops. If they are at the sides, as currently, to make the storage loops longer, they push the pointwork and curves in the scenic area towards the bottom of the drawing and the space between is what's left. There may be a better balance to be struck where the fans are further around to the top of the drawing, meaning that there are more, shorter storage loops.

 

[Tallpaul69]

41 minutes ago, Harlequin said:

Hi Paul.

 

Negative points are fine. It's all a matter of give and take. This design was partly simply to get an idea of what would fit in the room. I'm digesting what you've said and I have some initial feedback for you.

 

No problem to replace one of the branch lines with a carriage siding near the junction (did I understand that correctly?) and single the rest. That may improve the character and the operations but unfortunately it doesn't help gain any space.

 

Yes, you are right, I was also trying to suggest the terminus end of the up branch becomes a siding joining to the terminus where the up branch currently does. So the branch becomes a single line, but there is only a relatively short length between the buffer stops of the carriage siding and the above terminus siding.

 

No problem with a run round loop in the terminus.

 

Would an up loop in the scenic area need some space in the goods yard on the up side of the mainline for loading and unloading? The advantages of leaving that side of the mainline clear are: Space (again) and less cluttered scenery behind, rising up to the branch line. Would a real goods yard span both sides of the mainline or would it more normally be on one side and rely on traffic crossing over? (Potentially more interesting operation.)

 

In reality the main yard at Maidenhead was on the up side behind the up loop and the down loop was just a loop between the down relief and the up and down main. Thus the up loop need only be a loop, and as you say the traffic would cross over. This might also mean the crossover you have positioned between the tunnel and the goods shed needs to move nearer the goods shed?

 

Please explain more about the double ended coal sidings. I don't understand where they are on your drawing of Partly Maidenhead.

 

On my plan the coal sidings are the two sidings running round from the up loop, behind the houses (relative to the junction) to the line that runs from the branch yard to the up main. So the loaded coal wagons are pushed in from the junction end. The empty wagons on the next road are pulled out towards the junction (by the same loco  or at a later time).

 Later in the day, in the non scenic area, a loco leaves the branch yard and attaches to the end of the full wagon set. It pulls them out into the Branch yard. It then pulls a set of empty coal wagons out of one of the sidings in the branch yard and pushes them into the second of the sidings. None of this is seen from the operating position, although positioning could be interesting, might require some sort of marker for the operator!

 

The size of the operating well is mainly determined by the fans of points leading into the storage loops. If they are at the sides, as currently, to make the storage loops longer, they push the pointwork and curves in the scenic area towards the bottom of the drawing and the space between is what's left. There may be a better balance to be struck where the fans are further around to the top of the drawing, meaning that there are more, shorter storage loops.

 

I think the storage loops should stay as you have drawn them, however, I possibly would use some of the well as scenic development although care would be needed to make sure that the branch could be reached to deal with problems!

 

 

Phil,

I hope my comments in italics in your above post clarify things?

 

Best regards

Paul

[mdvle]

On 03/03/2019 at 11:12, Tallpaul69 said:

Scenically, I think I would reduce the size of the operating well, to increase the scenic picture. I just cannot see the use of all that operating well space for what will mostly be a single person operation. It would be a shame to be short of space on the layout and have a space that will inevitably just fill up with junk, that having less space will force me to be disciplined and put away in my storage area!

 

 

The danger to filling the room with scenery is that you end making some of the track unreachable for either maintenance/cleaning or dealing with a train issue.

 

You may find a post today a help as it is a lesson learned from a first room sized layout - https://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/105163-rmw-layout-track-design-all-change/&do=findComment&comment=3485486 

 

 

[Harlequin]

Hi Paul,

 

I think this would be the ideal way to add an up goods loop and give it crossover access into the down goods yard:

 

An up goods train would pull into the up loop, wait for clearance, pull out onto the up main and then set back across the down main into the down loop. Right?

 

If that's topologically correct then the next challenge is to squeeze it into the curves of the scenic area! I think I have found a way to make the storage siding fans more space efficient so I hope there will be a bit more room in the scenic area.

 

Am I right in thinking that you have the idea of deliberately obscuring the operator's view of the fiddle yard? If so, why?

 

P.S. I realised that the goods yard is laid out badly in my previous drawing because the two long diagonal sidings have to be shunted through the goods shed. Not right!

 

Edited March 5, 2019 by Harlequin

[Zomboid]

Introducing a little pedantry, shouldn't the single slip be the other way round, so it doesn't put a facing point in the down main?

[Harlequin]

1 hour ago, Zomboid said:

Introducing a little pedantry, shouldn't the single slip be the other way round, so it doesn't put a facing point in the down main?

It's that way round to allow down trains to enter the down loop (of course) - just like the points entering the up loop.

Since this is post-war WR I'm assuming that this sort of formation is OK and anyway we may need to take a few liberties to squeeze all the required elements into the room.

 

[The Stationmaster]

1 hour ago, Harlequin said:

It's that way round to allow down trains to enter the down loop (of course) - just like the points entering the up loop.

Since this is post-war WR I'm assuming that this sort of formation is OK and anyway we may need to take a few liberties to squeeze all the required elements into the room.

 

Very unusual to say the least.  There were a few examples about but I'm struggling to think of any off hand, particularly on the main line routes.

[Joseph_Pestell]

If one is going to allow a facing connection, it's more likely to be a double-slip so that it provides a crossover as well. Still rather rare but Stroud GW and Tavistock SR are two examples.

 

[Tallpaul69]

11 hours ago, Harlequin said:

Hi Paul,

 

I think this would be the ideal way to add an up goods loop and give it crossover access into the down goods yard:

 

An up goods train would pull into the up loop, wait for clearance, pull out onto the up main and then set back across the down main into the down loop. Right?

 

If that's topologically correct then the next challenge is to squeeze it into the curves of the scenic area! I think I have found a way to make the storage siding fans more space efficient so I hope there will be a bit more room in the scenic area.

 

Am I right in thinking that you have the idea of deliberately obscuring the operator's view of the fiddle yard? If so, why?

 

P.S. I realised that the goods yard is laid out badly in my previous drawing because the two long diagonal sidings have to be shunted through the goods shed. Not right!

 

Hi All,

Trying to answer the above from Phil and the subsequent queries raised by other posts:-

1) The formation Phil proposed Is I think a good way to do an up loop which is without sidings. (There is no room for any!) This may be argued as un prototypical but it is a compromise I can live with. From my point of view much better than trying to back a down train from an out of scenic area into the loop from the far end!

 

2) Not sure how you got the impression I wanted to hide the operators view of the fiddle yard. What I do not want to do is be constantly spinning round from viewing the scenic area in front of which I would want my controls to view the fiddle yard. Yes, if I have a hand controller I can view the fiddle yard and the scenic area while standing to one end of the operating well. However the scenic area needs to be the main focus of my attention.

 

3) I didn't worry too much about the access to the sidings as I thought the goods yard overall probably would need a revisit. Phil, referring back to our earlier discussion about the coal

sidings, while a pet feature of mine, the up loop is far more important , so if the coal sidings idea has to go, so be it!

 

4) regarding the balance of scenery areas, I agree with the post from Mdvle that cautioned about being able to reach all the track, but I don't see a large operating well as being of any use!  

5) If Zomboid and Mike the station master can suggest an alternative arrangement for the up and down loops that is not too space hungry then I am sure Phil will look at it, as will I

 

Thanks to all for their contributions

Paul   .

[Tallpaul69]

17 hours ago, mdvle said:

 

The danger to filling the room with scenery is that you end making some of the track unreachable for either maintenance/cleaning or dealing with a train issue.

 

You may find a post today a help as it is a lesson learned from a first room sized layout - https://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/105163-rmw-layout-track-design-all-change/&do=findComment&comment=3485486 

 

 

Hi There,

Have already commented on the scenery thing, in my reply to all the recent posts that I sent a few minutes ago.

 

This post is to query the relevance of Halsey's freight only line in a 9ftx7ft shed to this?

Maybe I've missed something? I did download the Halsey2img plan?

 

Cheers

Paul