RMweb Gold barney121e Posted May 27, 2022 Author RMweb Gold Share Posted May 27, 2022 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold barney121e Posted May 29, 2022 Author RMweb Gold Share Posted May 29, 2022 My only other thought is to use the classis track plan for Bredon, as definitely would work for me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Flying Pig Posted May 29, 2022 RMweb Premium Share Posted May 29, 2022 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. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold barney121e Posted May 30, 2022 Author RMweb Gold Share Posted May 30, 2022 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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Chimer Posted May 30, 2022 RMweb Premium Share Posted May 30, 2022 (edited) 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 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold barney121e Posted May 30, 2022 Author RMweb Gold Share Posted May 30, 2022 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold ITG Posted May 30, 2022 RMweb Gold Share Posted May 30, 2022 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. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold barney121e Posted May 30, 2022 Author RMweb Gold Share Posted May 30, 2022 (edited) 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Flying Pig Posted May 30, 2022 RMweb Premium Share Posted May 30, 2022 I think you could go back to the earlier less wiggly sidings and let the inner platform expand again. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold barney121e Posted May 31, 2022 Author RMweb Gold Share Posted May 31, 2022 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Flying Pig Posted May 31, 2022 RMweb Premium Share Posted May 31, 2022 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. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold barney121e Posted June 2, 2022 Author RMweb Gold Share Posted June 2, 2022 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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Chimer Posted June 3, 2022 RMweb Premium Share Posted June 3, 2022 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. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold ITG Posted June 3, 2022 RMweb Gold Share Posted June 3, 2022 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. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Buckner Posted June 3, 2022 Share Posted June 3, 2022 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. 1 1 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now