Best use of a 17x7 foot space

[Mainlinefreighter58]

Hi all i have a space in the cellar thats 17 feet by 7, there are two immoveable pillars that hold the groundlevel floor up but aside from that and room to stand its flexible. ive done an idea that i think would suit me best (fictional preservation) some steam some diesel nothing newer than 1994 in colour scheme. what would you do better than I as im inexperienced with the software (Anyrail) its a phot take from a phone cam as i cant figure out how to import it into here 

[ITG]

Others more experienced than myself will have more to insight and comment on the layout plan, but to export from Anyrail, go to File > Export as > Picture (jpeg etc), and save where you wish. Then post that picture on this site, either by drag or attach.
 

as for layout, a couple of thoughts from one who is still going through similar learning! First thing is to define what you want. This layout will give lots of opportunity to watch trains going round, but where are they going to/coming from? But it’s yours, so just always bear that in mind.

1. tunnel - is that just a tunnel or a fiddle yard within? If the latter, remember to allow for access.

2. some track formations that are reminiscent of a vintage Hornby track plans book. Eg the third siding in centre with dual access road, 

3. if turntable fails, you cannot get a loco from shed to running lines. (Maybe more of a prototype problem than model)

4. sidings at bottom left have tricky access and capacity.

Good luck.

 

[Chimer]

Some basic questions …...

 

How do you get into the "standing space"?  Steps down into it (where?) or ducking under (from where?)

 

Is there access round the outside of the 17 x 7, or is that the max dimensions between the walls? (I'm worried about reaching the left hand side in the event of derailments, etc)

 

Are you committed to using Hornby set-track, or would you be prepared to use flexitrack?

 

Do you want it to look (reasonably) prototypical, or is fun operation your main aim?

 

My first thought, given that space, would be for the main scenic area, including a station with goods yard, to run round a gentle curve from bottom right to the pillar top left, with a fiddle yard (or possibly more scenic storage sidings) along the bottom edge (your tunnel, roughly).  And maybe, if access is possible, a motive power depot behind/between the pillars on the left.  Double track main line, perhaps with a branch from the station, but definitely not with a station on the branch.  Station platforms at least 6 feet long …….

 

It's a huge space, by most peoples' standards, and you could do something really good.  But not quickly ….

 

Good luck!

 

Chris

[DCB]

Its like something from the Triang Track Pans book for 1960 something but its totally impractical.   There is no way to get to the left hand end.   You need to ditch those awful set track points and slim down your track spacing.   Practical experience of a waist height or thereabouts layouts of around this size is that the Operating well needs to be 3ft wide and get to within 3ft of the back corners. Pillar is a bit of a problem.  There is probably only room for two tracks and a operating well between them.    The top right hand track arrangement is neither double track nor two singles.   You have room for a nice double track oval for 7 coach trains and 20 wagon goods with a six road FY where you have  the "Hill"   Stick the Turntable in a corner, they are huge space wasters.   See squiggle/ proof of concept drawing

[Mainlinefreighter58]

Id sized the operating well based on my size and the cellar will allow me to gain access to the left hand side and lower edge  its a big cellar and this is the space that has been earmarked for it so physical access shouldnt be too much of an issue, its going to be about a metre high so id be able to crawl under to get there. SetTrack make the geo easy for my simple mind to figure out . lots of ideas here i had not thought out, i know id need thru stations as ive steam hauled passenger and diesel freight on this preservation idea the tunnel appeals as SWMBO wants to put a farm scene on it and it helps hide some of the tailchasing  

Ive re-inserted the layout as a better view rather than a cam screenshot. Not fully grasping of the geometry yet but as a storage/fiddle yard how many lanes can you have in a 2 food wide space (and not have them hit each other) i admitedly use a level crossing to space as i know the geo has to be right for it to fit.

 

Added a second pic without the tunnel so you can see what was under 

Edited May 1, 2020 by Mainlinefreighter58
unclear

[Pete the Elaner]

15 hours ago, ITG said:

First thing is to define what you want. This layout will give lots of opportunity to watch trains going round, but where are they going to/coming from? But it’s yours, so just always bear that in mind.

1. tunnel - is that just a tunnel or a fiddle yard within? If the latter, remember to allow for access.

2. some track formations that are reminiscent of a vintage Hornby track plans book. Eg the third siding in centre with dual access road, 

3. if turntable fails, you cannot get a loco from shed to running lines. (Maybe more of a prototype problem than model)

4. sidings at bottom left have tricky access and capacity.

 

 

Some very good points made there.

After several early layouts with track slapped down absolutely everywhere, I found them too complex. I never had patience to make them work properly (or the experience & confidence that I would do it). They looked like something I had cooked up with the intention of filling a board with track.

There is nothing really wrong with that if it really is what you want, but I really don't think you will be satisfied with the end result.

 

This may sound a bit scathing & sorry for being so long but I really doubt that what have planned will be satisfying in the long run, so I would rather be honest & warn you against building something you may regret doing.

 

I have since discovered that something more realistic gives me much more satisfaction.

Referring to the points made above:

1. A fiddle yard is great. It represents the rest of the line or network, even if you only have space for 4-6 trains.

2. The strange diamond formation for the middle siding serves no purpose. I doubt you would have seen that on the real railway...ever. 2 points are completely unnecessary.

4. The sidings are indeed very short & require a backing-up operation to get anything in there. A pair of sidings will be much more useful.

 

& some points I've not seen mentioned:

Station area: All 4 platform faces are just under 3' (3 coaches) long, which is reminiscent of a single platform country station, not a 4 platform station. The bottom & middle platform can easily be made longer. They will look much better this way.

If a passenger wants to get from the top to bottom platform, they have to walk up/across/down 1 footbridge, along the centre platform, then up/across/down the other footbridge. If you take a look at 4-track stations, you will see that where possible they have just 1 footbridge which spans all platforms. If you have to buy 2 platforms then cut & shut them, it will give your layout more individuality.

What are the 2 sidings in the top left & top right for? If you don't really need them, you can make the top platform longer.

You have 2 crossovers in the station, 1 of them is repeated to the left of the station. Pointwork makes coaches overhang so the platforms need to be set back, so these are best avoided. That may be ok if Greg Rutherford is the only passenger!

The smaller station is only usable from 1 direction. I have never seen a terminus on a through line.

Anything exiting from the line on the left would have to back out onto the main line, then there is no crossover nearby for it to continue in the same direction.

The operating well is 7' from the furthest wall, where you also have a yard.

You have what looks like a level crossing on the left, but no space for a road to use it. There is not even enough room to squeeze a road in between the main lines & yard lines.

The loop for the station on the right is strange & you have no road access to the station over there. It is blocked in by railway with no crossings.

 

Firstly, can you move the operating well closer to the left. You have house supports which can't be used for railway & are obstacles while building the layout & then later need to re-rail something.

 

Make a list of what you want to include & list these in the order they are important to you. You can't include everything so you will have to draw a line somewhere & accept that things beneath the line may not be possible.

 

I prefer to model locations which look plausible, so use the following criteria.

The railway serves a purpose. The only stations which have no road access have a bout 4 trains per day, so I guess you want something a bit more interesting. Your stations will therefore need road access.

The same applies to goods yards. They will need space for unloading, whether this is to serve ongoing transport by rail or some sort of industry rail head.

You don't need to make stations hold 12 coach trains, but what is the shortest which looks reasonable for your line? Maybe a tank engine & 3 locos or DMU for a country station, but for a tender loco or type 3 diesel, 5-6 coaches looks much more reasonable. You certainly have the space to do this.

If you want locos on the layout, then design a reason. Maybe freight locos to serve an industry rail head (which ties in with the rail head earlier), or maybe passenger locos...in which case, you need to have a reason to change them.

Railways only laid track where they really needed it. It was too expensive to lay it everywhere without thought to what it was required for.

If you want branch line platforms, then why not have a branch line? It does not need to run all the way around. You could model a small station elsewhere & run a shuttle service.

 

With the lockdown in place, it would be wrong to recommend going to see a few stations & locations for real in order to get some ideas, but I have found Google Maps to be a very useful resource.

 

In a lot of ways, less is more. It makes the layout quicker to build & get running (seeing something running for the first time is very important & you will need this boost, but a complex layout delays this). Less track also allows more room for scenery. Fields are very quick to get looking nice.

 

At the end of the day, it is your layout. Don't do something because somebody else likes it & don't refuse to do something because somebody like me says it looks strange or wrong.

[Mainlinefreighter58]

47 minutes ago, Pete the Elaner said:

 

Some very good points made there.

After several early layouts with track slapped down absolutely everywhere, I found them too complex. I never had patience to make them work properly (or the experience & confidence that I would do it). They looked like something I had cooked up with the intention of filling a board with track.

There is nothing really wrong with that if it really is what you want, but I really don't think you will be satisfied with the end result.

 

This may sound a bit scathing & sorry for being so long but I really doubt that what have planned will be satisfying in the long run, so I would rather be honest & warn you against building something you may regret doing.

 

I have since discovered that something more realistic gives me much more satisfaction.

Referring to the points made above:

1. A fiddle yard is great. It represents the rest of the line or network, even if you only have space for 4-6 trains.

2. The strange diamond formation for the middle siding serves no purpose. I doubt you would have seen that on the real railway...ever. 2 points are completely unnecessary.

4. The sidings are indeed very short & require a backing-up operation to get anything in there. A pair of sidings will be much more useful.

 

& some points I've not seen mentioned:

Station area: All 4 platform faces are just under 3' (3 coaches) long, which is reminiscent of a single platform country station, not a 4 platform station. The bottom & middle platform can easily be made longer. They will look much better this way.

If a passenger wants to get from the top to bottom platform, they have to walk up/across/down 1 footbridge, along the centre platform, then up/across/down the other footbridge. If you take a look at 4-track stations, you will see that where possible they have just 1 footbridge which spans all platforms. If you have to buy 2 platforms then cut & shut them, it will give your layout more individuality.

What are the 2 sidings in the top left & top right for? If you don't really need them, you can make the top platform longer.

You have 2 crossovers in the station, 1 of them is repeated to the left of the station. Pointwork makes coaches overhang so the platforms need to be set back, so these are best avoided. That may be ok if Greg Rutherford is the only passenger!

The smaller station is only usable from 1 direction. I have never seen a terminus on a through line.

Anything exiting from the line on the left would have to back out onto the main line, then there is no crossover nearby for it to continue in the same direction.

The operating well is 7' from the furthest wall, where you also have a yard.

You have what looks like a level crossing on the left, but no space for a road to use it. There is not even enough room to squeeze a road in between the main lines & yard lines.

The loop for the station on the right is strange & you have no road access to the station over there. It is blocked in by railway with no crossings.

 

Firstly, can you move the operating well closer to the left. You have house supports which can't be used for railway & are obstacles while building the layout & then later need to re-rail something.

 

Make a list of what you want to include & list these in the order they are important to you. You can't include everything so you will have to draw a line somewhere & accept that things beneath the line may not be possible.

 

I prefer to model locations which look plausible, so use the following criteria.

The railway serves a purpose. The only stations which have no road access have a bout 4 trains per day, so I guess you want something a bit more interesting. Your stations will therefore need road access.

The same applies to goods yards. They will need space for unloading, whether this is to serve ongoing transport by rail or some sort of industry rail head.

You don't need to make stations hold 12 coach trains, but what is the shortest which looks reasonable for your line? Maybe a tank engine & 3 locos or DMU for a country station, but for a tender loco or type 3 diesel, 5-6 coaches looks much more reasonable. You certainly have the space to do this.

If you want locos on the layout, then design a reason. Maybe freight locos to serve an industry rail head (which ties in with the rail head earlier), or maybe passenger locos...in which case, you need to have a reason to change them.

Railways only laid track where they really needed it. It was too expensive to lay it everywhere without thought to what it was required for.

If you want branch line platforms, then why not have a branch line? It does not need to run all the way around. You could model a small station elsewhere & run a shuttle service.

 

With the lockdown in place, it would be wrong to recommend going to see a few stations & locations for real in order to get some ideas, but I have found Google Maps to be a very useful resource.

 

In a lot of ways, less is more. It makes the layout quicker to build & get running (seeing something running for the first time is very important & you will need this boost, but a complex layout delays this). Less track also allows more room for scenery. Fields are very quick to get looking nice.

 

At the end of the day, it is your layout. Don't do something because somebody else likes it & don't refuse to do something because somebody like me says it looks strange or wrong.

All good points, I tend to use a double level crossing to help me with the geo on the track i know then that the tracks are parallel, The is no wall on the left handside or along the bottom  but the upper and right hand edge are against the wall, I started by first putting two paralell ovals in and then kind of went from there, station length i found hard to place anyway as ill run max 3-5 length rakes so again i need to look at that i do have a couple of DMU units. Its so hard to mix a lot of features without falling into the trap of only being track in it 

[Pete the Elaner]

5 minutes ago, Mainlinefreighter58 said:

I tend to use a double level crossing to help me with the geo on the track i know then that the tracks are parallel.

 

That's an easy fix.

Peco make a 6' way gauge which will hold tracks apart. I prefer to use 2 glued a little apart so it stays upright like in my photo. You can see 2 different spacings. The one I used is for Peco Streamline, but if you flip it upside down, you can see Settrack/Hornby spacing is on there too. If you use a straight edge on the 1st track, this will keep the 2nd true all the way around too.

 

You can make 1 of these for yourself with plastikard, or even an old cereal packet.

 

[JDW]

Lots of good advice above already - of course, it depends entirely on what you want to build, but the plan does look an awful lot more like a train set than a model railway. Such a big station seems overkill for a preservation-type line, but possible.

In terms of operation, I suggest that you follow the path of trains with your finger, where will they run? The left hand side looks like a two track main line. The right hand side doesn't follow any kind of logic at all though. The strange connection between the two main loops is very odd on the right hand end. A crossover would do the same job, and with crossovers at either end of the station already, there's no need for ones in the platforms that will be somewhat pointless. 

I'd suggest something like the plan below, which gives you (see letters in red on plan):

A longer platforms

B Strange use of Y-points removed and replaced with normal left/right (longer platforms and no reverse curve/kink at each end)

C a logical layout of the lines to the right hand side, allowing trains to fully use both tracks without wasted lines or space

D A small second station with loops to allow a short train to stop there and another to overtake (also provides extra storage since you don't have a storage yard). It is a bit close to the main station to be realistic but adds play value and is much more usable than the dead-end one

E a better yard entrance layout and an extra siding

F a headshunt to allow trains to be shunted in the yard without going onto the main line

G a goods shed (might be re-purposed on a preserved line) and space for more scenics around it by shortening one of the sidings

H a possible crossover to allow trains arriving in the yard to release the loco or for it to run around

J changing the crossover to a trailing one to allow anything leaving the yard to get onto the correct track for left-hand running. Trailing crossovers are preferred where possible anyway

K a trailing connection to the diesel depot which also allows direct access between the all platforms in the station and depot for loco changes. I've left the turntable as is, and with a trailing point giving access, apart from making it so locos aren't running directly from the main line onto it, but steam-era depot layouts are not my forté so others will know better than I do. 

L a crossover so that trains going clockwise can use platforms 1 (top) or 2. Those going anti-clockwise can use 2, 3 or 4 (bottom). Ones going clockwise could also use 3 or 4 to terminate and swap direction. Ones going anti-clockwise could use 2 to terminate and change direction. 

 

 

A slight alternative might be an island station (GCR style) on the opposite side to the main station, and move the tunnel to cover the right hand corner, which both covers up some of the sharp curves and should give a more 'square' area to work with for your planned farm scene on top rather than a long thing strip:

 

 

I hope some of that at least makes sense!

[Mainlinefreighter58]

Some really useful ideas here thankyou  

[Chimer]

A quick stab at something to fit the space ….

 

 

Junction station, two trailing crossovers to allow trains to terminate / reverse and branch passenger run round, small goods yard served by trains on outer circuit by reversing across slips, station building on road bridge providing scenic break in front of pillar, platforms continuing under bridge, room for MPD (I can't design MPDs) on left hand board, possibly at slightly lower level than main lines passing behind, manhole in top right corner  for emergency access to branch line, 5 bi-directional roads in fiddle yard plus 2 longer one-way roads.  Points mostly Streamline medium radius, hidden curves 3rd/4th radius set-track.

 

[mdvle]

9 hours ago, Mainlinefreighter58 said:

Id sized the operating well based on my size and the cellar will allow me to gain access to the left hand side and lower edge  its a big cellar and this is the space that has been earmarked for it so physical access shouldnt be too much of an issue, its going to be about a metre high so id be able to crawl under to get there.

 

Most layouts, particularly once you get to the size you have available, tend to be not just multi-year projects but multi-decade.  Unless you decide that with experience you don't like the track layout you need to be planning for getting older, getting a bad back/knees, a growing waistline, etc. all of which can influence how comfortable operating a layout is.

 

Saying the layout will be a metre high and so crawling under it for access may well be acceptable today or next year, but is less likely to be acceptable as the years pass.  Thus it might be worth planning accordingly.

 

Similarly, yes you may be able to fit in the well.  But in addition to allowing for aging may be times where you just want to sit in a reasonably comfortable chair and just watch trains go in a circle, thus allowance for a comfortable middle space may be beneficial.

 

 

[cypherman]

Hi all,

Your track plan has one major flaw that I can see, And it is one that I fell into many years ago. It is the end with the turntable that will cause you no end of problems with access. According to your diagram the baseboard there is about 5ft wide. There is no way that you can practically get to any of the track and points on the far side to do anything should a problem occur. I learnt from bitter experience about this and decided that the max width of any of my future baseboards would be 3 ft.

[Chimer]

He's got access to that bit from the outside though ….

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

On ‎30‎/‎04‎/‎2020 at 18:58, Chimer said:

...Are you committed to using Hornby set-track, or would you be prepared to use flexitrack?...

If you can make 'the leap' to using flexitrack, here are the principal advantages:

A larger choice of much superior points, which you have the layout space for.

Curve radii can be tailored to the location, and made as large as possible.

Between them these two make for more reliable running.

Once a layout space exceeds 8x4 feet, flexitrack becomes significantly cheaper, and especially if the plain track is purchased in boxes of 25 pieces at the best discount available. The net effect is to roughly halve the price. (There may be some delay involved here,  as Peco are currently shut and stocks with retailers appear to have largely sold!) 

[TonyMay]

If more space is available, could that not be used?  Even if it's just a plain double track board with no scenery in places?

[Mainlinefreighter58]

40 minutes ago, 34theletterbetweenB&D said:

If you can make 'the leap' to using flexitrack, here are the principal advantages:

A larger choice of much superior points, which you have the layout space for.

Curve radii can be tailored to the location, and made as large as possible.

Between them these two make for more reliable running.

Once a layout space exceeds 8x4 feet, flexitrack becomes significantly cheaper, and especially if the plain track is purchased in boxes of 25 pieces at the best discount available. The net effect is to roughly halve the price. (There may be some delay involved here,  as Peco are currently shut and stocks with retailers appear to have largely sold!) 

Id consider it  again i just understand setrack easier and find it easier to work with as all my rprevious layouts have been using setrack, again its a geometry thing my pea-brain works better with defined sections 

[Mainlinefreighter58]

1 minute ago, TonyMay said:

If more space is available, could that not be used?  Even if it's just a plain double track board with no scenery in places?

Its storage, the cellar is about 8 metres by 5 metres, there are a set of cupboards along one side so id need to leave room to use these  but also we have othe stuff down there such as my office so as much as i love to use the whole cellar (that would be an epic layout) i cannot justify it 

[Mainlinefreighter58]

been and had a think its still trainset based but is a more interesting and practical (i hope)  layout, there are a couple of missmatches but flextrack should help that 

[Mainlinefreighter58]

better use of a turntable for moving shunting engines and a better use of the space i feel on this idea