Station Throat Help needed on Double track Continuous Run 11' x 7' Layout

[BoltblasterM1910]

Hello, I'm quite new to this!

 

I have built a few small OO layouts which have turned out quite well but they were simple affairs using mainly setrack.

 

I have worked with PECO streamline on a shelf layout, also a simple shunting layout with wired electrofrog points, point motors and switches  so I know I can do this!

 

Its now time to do something a bit larger and more complex and delve into DCC.

 

After looking at many layouts I am very impressed with Scenic Model Railways's "Widbury-on-Sea" DCC OO gauge layout at 11'6"x 6"as this meets nearly all my requirements and is approximately the same size as the space I have.

 

While I don't want to make an exact copy, I like the double continuous run, the Passing  and Terminus station and the simple Goods and Engine yards and the Branchline on an incline to a fiddle yard.

 

My actual layout size can only be 11'1" x 7' I can't make it any longer or wider.

 

I have drawn up a plan using SCARM but I'm not entirely happy with it.   The curves don't look right to me, a bit train set-like, I'm after gentler more flowing curves but don't want to go under Radius 3 (21" on the inner track) and the Station throat is just about right but there is a misalignment of  a set of points and the double slip.

 

Any advice would be appreciated.

 

Is this a workable layout, can it be improved?

 

Are there any  professional Model Railway design services that could improve and "tweak" the plan for me at a reasonable cost.  I want to get it right in the planning stage before buying track and points etc.

 

Any advice/criticism/help welcome.  Pictures of the Trackplan and original TP of the Widbury on Sea "Throat". I hope its alright to post the original TP's from Scenic model railways website. They were freely displayed there.

[beejack]

Using Anyrail, all the points and crossovers align ok.  May just be a glitch in Scarm as both the double slip and crossover are the same dimensions as are the medium and curved points.

 

 

I noticed on your curves that the track centre distances do not appear to change, depending on the rolling stock you will be using you may need to look at increasing the track centres on the curves to avoid stock clashing.  With radius 3 and 4 curves ( approx 20" and 22.5") I find that I need a minimum of 60mm between track centres to allow my longest coaches (Pendolino) to pass without clashing where as on the straight it is normally 51mm with Peco streamline.

[Joseph_Pestell]

Is there anyway that the NG layout could be 9" higher than the standard gauge?

 

If so you could put the standard gauge fiddle yard below it and avoid all the potential problems of tight radius curves on a steep gradient.

[BoltblasterM1910]

17 hours ago, Joseph_Pestell said:

Is there anyway that the NG layout could be 9" higher than the standard gauge?

 

If so you could put the standard gauge fiddle yard below it and avoid all the potential problems of tight radius curves on a steep gradient.

Yes that is possible, could be a good idea.   I would mean that the fiddle yard would have to branch-off in the opposite direction if I keep the open space to the door, which wouldn't be good for running into the Terminus platforms.

 

I'm only in the planning stages at the moment, but I could extend the baseboard to the doorway and have a lift-out section or a duck-under. The main layout is going to be 4'(1200mm) off the floor. I have been thinking about this. I don't use the room really for anything else apart from model railways and keeping my Guitars and amps in. When I play guitar I stand in the doorway or just in the other room  so as not to deafen myself!

18 hours ago, beejack said:

I noticed on your curves that the track centre distances do not appear to change, depending on the rolling stock you will be using you may need to look at increasing the track centres on the curves to avoid stock clashing.  With radius 3 and 4 curves ( approx 20" and 22.5") I find that I need a minimum of 60mm between track centres to allow my longest coaches (Pendolino) to pass without clashing where as on the straight it is normally 51mm with Peco streamline.

Thanks for the advice. I am aware that  I will need to widen the spacing. The layouts I've built before were pretty simple and just built without anything but a rough trackplan and  using my eye to  adjust flex track curves with the help of some tracksetta radius curves. I was going to ask about double track spacings in regards to straights and curves and how much to increase the spacings by.   I would have liked to have radius 4 as my minimum radius but I don't think that would work as regards to fit, it would eat into platform length a bit. Ideally I would like the two Terminus platforms to be 5' (1500mm) or a bit more. See picture of "Widbury on Sea" platforms.

 

I'll try plotting that in anyrail as I also have that on my computer. I like SCARM as it allows you to run a train around the layout to check if operations are viable.

 

I'm finding when I come up with an answer to one problem it often creates another! Compromises have to be made. I would have liked larger radius curves so coaches could be close-coupled, but with radius 3 or 4 this is not possible as far as I am aware.

 

The layout will be '50s-Early'60s BR, mainly Steam with a few diesels and electrics.  Not based on any particular area as such but maybe somewhere in the South so I can have both WR and SR BR stock.

[BoltblasterM1910]

A bit of a re-work. Get rid of NG-build that as a standalone somewhere else., use whole room, move fiddleyard under  layout on the far-side. Turntable at the end of FY represents a simple rotating loco release.

 

Needs more adjusting. Include another  branchline  of the main to a small seaside terminus . That should probably be around the other way  so that  it can run through the main station and down the Branchline into the Fiddle yard.

[Harlequin]

Hi Bolt,

 

Fiddle yards under scenery are usually a bad idea but your traverser should be OK, as long you use fully extending draw runners so that you can pull it out to get at all the roads. I think the turntable under the scenery would be a nightmare though. You could use loco-lifts to turn locos on the traverser instead.

 

Train access to the FY is also a bit of a problem because they always have to leave the main layout from the inner circuit and to gain access to the outer circuit they have to run in the wrong direction on the inner circuit for a short distance. Furthermore, there's no way to turn a loco on the scenic level so, unless you use the hand-of-god, tender locos will end up either reversing their trains back down to the FY or running round and hauling them down tender first - neither ideal. And there are a number of other problems with this arrangement.

 

Roundy-round designs benefit from have a through-fiddle-yard where trains can arrive from either direction, the loco can be turned and then the train can later leave in the opposite direction (on the other line).

 

The space you've got available is on the smallish side but reasonable and so to fit everything in I think you need to use the volume as efficiently as possible. Good decision to abandon the narrow gauge layout for now - it might be possible to thread some narrow gauge into the main layout design once you've got it sorted.

 

P.S. This topic should really be in the "Layout and Track Design" section.

 

Edited May 5, 2019 by Harlequin