Any enlargement suggestions

[barney121e]

1 hour ago, Harlequin said:

It is possible to build a layout using Streamline turnouts in your available space if you want to take a step forward in the realism and quality of your track.

 

For example this plan is all Streamline, including the use of Streamline Curved turnouts (David! 😉):

 

Well firstly it is cost, as i have all settrack track and points. Below is the plav which initially caught my attention. The guy has used the track plan on 3 different layouts, just changing stations etc and making small adjustments. 

[barney121e]

My only other thought is to use the classis track plan for Bredon, as definitely would work for me.

[Flying Pig]

6 minutes ago, barney121e said:

My only other thought is to use the classis track plan for Bredon, as definitely would work for me.

 

You started the thread with a pretty good track plan, with plenty of potential for operation and scenic development. Neither the plan you've just posted nor Bredon is IMO an improvement in the space you have.

[barney121e]

20 hours ago, Flying Pig said:

 

You started the thread with a pretty good track plan, with plenty of potential for operation and scenic development. Neither the plan you've just posted nor Bredon is IMO an improvement in the space you have.

I do like the intial plan, maybe with a smaller headshunt (or trap) would make sense. However whilst exhausting any other thoughts have come across this plan in the Peco Setrack plan book. The original plan has no station but i think one would work in the left hand corner. The plans in the sidings are suggested as a small goods yard or a maintenance shed and would also give me double track running. But i do have a question. As i understand it the outside track goes clockwise, but the points face the opposite direction, is that correct? 

[Chimer]

Yes, that's normal practice.  The crossovers and the point leading to the goods yard are "trailing" - i.e. trains/locos moving in the usual direction (keeping left) have to stop and reverse over them.  This guards against head-on collisions at speed, and passenger trains charging into goods yards .....

Edited May 30, 2022 by Chimer

[barney121e]

15 minutes ago, Chimer said:

Yes, that's normal practice.  The crossovers and the point leading to the goods yard are "trailing" - i.e. trains/locos moving in the usual direction (keeping left) have to stop and reverse over them.  This guards against head-on collisions at speed, and passenger trains charging into goods yards .....

Thanks, that makes sense. 

 

Now it's decision time.

 

[ITG]

Some interesting toing and froing as ideas evolve. But I can’t help but think a fundamental question (for the OP) to resolve is…… where is the balance point between an expanded train set versus a prototypical layout? There is no right or wrong answer to this IMHO, and I know and accept that my own layout has a balance point on this spectrum which some experienced modellers will find not to their taste. 
 

I’d suggest that the newly found set track plan leans heavily towards the expanded train set, whereas the original enlargement opportunity might pull in the opposite direction. As stated, no right or wrong, and it is your railway, but worth pausing to think what it is you’re trying to achieve. There’s a lot of crossovers and S-bends in that layout, and set track curved points are not always reknowned for their smooth running, particularly if reversing a train.

[barney121e]

40 minutes ago, ITG said:

Some interesting toing and froing as ideas evolve. But I can’t help but think a fundamental question (for the OP) to resolve is…… where is the balance point between an expanded train set versus a prototypical layout? There is no right or wrong answer to this IMHO, and I know and accept that my own layout has a balance point on this spectrum which some experienced modellers will find not to their taste. 
 

I’d suggest that the newly found set track plan leans heavily towards the expanded train set, whereas the original enlargement opportunity might pull in the opposite direction. As stated, no right or wrong, and it is your railway, but worth pausing to think what it is you’re trying to achieve. There’s a lot of crossovers and S-bends in that layout, and set track curved points are not always reknowned for their smooth running, particularly if reversing a train.

Cheers @ITG

 

Have took a step back to really decide what i want to do. Going to stick with original plan, it is my first layout  so will give me lots of practice at different techniques and the plan i think is enough to keep me more than interested. The newly found one is quite train set like.

 

Took away the line to loco shed, as might make the sidings in middle an engine shed or could put it bottom left.

Edited May 30, 2022 by barney121e
added plan

[Flying Pig]

I think you could go back to the earlier less wiggly sidings and let the inner platform expand again.  

[barney121e]

15 hours ago, Flying Pig said:

I think you could go back to the earlier less wiggly sidings and let the inner platform expand again.  

Just like this one @Flying Pig

[Flying Pig]

That's the one.  You might also want to look at the discussion about the headshunt up thread and whether you need one or not.  As you have it now it's too short to shunt the yard, but longer than necessary for just a trap.

[barney121e]

So i have provisionally laid the track to make sure everything fits. But wondering if the siding bottom left in plan 1 or bottom right in plan 2 would be better for the engine shed?

[Chimer]

For me, the siding in pic 1 will work as a shed road, but being a short kick-back isn't much good for anything else.  The one in pic 2, a bit longer with more space around it, could serve some sort of commercial activity (small factory, cattle dock, creamery etc).  But you can afford to wait and see how the alternatives for you work operationally once you've got the track down.

[ITG]

2 hours ago, Chimer said:

For me, the siding in pic 1 will work as a shed road, but being a short kick-back isn't much good for anything else.  The one in pic 2, a bit longer with more space around it, could serve some sort of commercial activity (small factory, cattle dock, creamery etc).  But you can afford to wait and see how the alternatives for you work operationally once you've got the track down.

Valid point, although if some form of set track style uncoupler is planned (Don’t  think the options for this have been mentioned?), then one may need a straight section to mount it. That then means the extended length, referred to by Chimer, isn’t wholly usable to park wagons. 
But with either option, if it’s purely a loco shed/spur, the uncoupler isn’t really a consideration.

[Mike Buckner]

On 22/05/2022 at 14:58, Colin_McLeod said:

 Quote

Any enlargement suggestions

 

Careful if you are using Google for ideas. 

 

 

They don't work.