Revisiting track plans 8 x 4

[barney121e]

I posted a couple of months ago about possible layout plans on a 6 x 4 board. Have now managed to extend it to 8 x 4. I have access around all the board, but cant put a operating well in middle to increase area.

 

The layout will be DCC using peco setrack and insulfrog points. In my mind it will be a diesel heritage line. The three plans below are from various sources.

 

Choice 1 is from a guy on youtube who has the plan as a 6 x 4 layout which i have extended to 8 x 4. The guy openly says there are compromises to operations which i am happy to go with. 

 

Choice 2 is from the free track plans from the Hornby list. My only query is the line bottom left marked with a ?. Do people thing it is needed?

 

Choice 3 is based on a heritage line called Carrog which was done in N gauge and i have expanded to OO (original was 4 x2)

 

To be honest shunting etc doesnt appeal to me too much, a little is fine but prefer seeing trains running round. 

 

So apart from the question about choice 2, can anyone suggest minor alterations i could do? I think the fiddle yard could be better, so open to different designs of fiddle yards. 

[ITG]

On the first one, if you are running on the correct road (left) trains in both directions will have to run beyond the  FY entrance tunnels (and into the station throat), in order to reverse onto the FY siding. Having the sidings the other way round would allow trains to run directly in, you to ‘fiddle’ (change loco, at other end etc) and then exit, But they’d then be running wrong road, unless you add crossovers within the FY.

Second one doesn’t suffer that problem, but having only a single spare road doesn’t give much capacity. The spurs could be useful for holding locos. The ? Siding would equally be succulent for holding  a spare loco.

 

if you like watching locos circling, then a twin track is by definition doubling that attraction.

[barney121e]

55 minutes ago, ITG said:

On the first one, if you are running on the correct road (left) trains in both directions will have to run beyond the  FY entrance tunnels (and into the station throat), in order to reverse onto the FY siding. Having the sidings the other way round would allow trains to run directly in, you to ‘fiddle’ (change loco, at other end etc) and then exit, But they’d then be running wrong road, unless you add crossovers within the FY.

Second one doesn’t suffer that problem, but having only a single spare road doesn’t give much capacity. The spurs could be useful for holding locos. The ? Siding would equally be succulent for holding  a spare loco.

 

if you like watching locos circling, then a twin track is by definition doubling that attraction.

Thanks

 

Although  a twin track would seem perfect, i cant really fit in a 2nd and 3rd radius curve line in space i have, and although my locos seem to be ok on 1st radius curves, i dont want to chance my arm.

 

Any thoughts on choice 3?

[Harlequin]

Like ITG says, for watching trains, a double track layout would seem to be the obvious choice.

 

So my suggestion would be something like Choice 1 but with some tweaks:

• Get rid of the platform loop. That would allow you to widen the end curves and get rid of the R1 curves, which will cause problems.
• Maybe make one end curve wider than the other so that the station is angled or curved for more interest. (Combine Flexitrack with your Settrack turnouts.)
• To replace the operational possibilities of platform loop, insert another trailing crossover at the left hand end of the station. Start both crossovers in the end curves if you can to maximise the distance between them. (You might use curved turnouts but they are less reliable so a bit risky). Then:
  • Trains can terminate in the station and change direction if required.
  • Locos of loco-hauled services can run round before changing direction.
  • Freight trains in either direction can shunt the goods yard properly.
• Abandon the engine shed because they were not common at through stations and it would be a bit odd to connect directly into a running line. You could replace it with an end-loading dock, perhaps.
• Do something very simple with the goods yard - just one or maybe two sidings. No headhsunt.

Thinking about the fiddle yard: Since you've got to move stock around by hand (a sensible and necessary compromise) it probably doesn't make much difference which way it faces but there might be a small advantage in mirroring it left to right because then you could drive trains directly into storage as ITG said. You've still got to move them from there by hand to get them onto either of the running lines but at least facing sidings mean that you can get a train off the mainline quickly if you need to.

 

Edited July 11, 2022 by Harlequin

[ITG]

Much depends on how much stock you wish to hold on the layout. None of the designs are over blessed with storage, but then that’s inevitable with your overall space restraints. You could consider the FY roads being loops, one off either main line. Might be particularly advantageous if you do as Harlequin suggests, and ditch the space-eating platform loop. 

[barney121e]

35 minutes ago, Harlequin said:

Like ITG says, for watching trains, a double track layout would seem to be the obvious choice.

 

So my suggestion would be something like Choice 1 but with some tweaks:

• Get rid of the platform loop. That would allow you to widen the end curves  and get rid of R1 curves, which will cause problems.
• Maybe make one end curve wider than the other so that the station is angled or curved for more interest. (Combine Flexitrack with your Settrack turnouts.)
• To replace the operational possibilities of platform loop, insert another trailing crossover at the left hand end of the station. Start both crossovers in the end curves to maximise the distance between them. (You might use curved turnouts but they are less reliable so a bit risky). Then:
  • Trains can terminate in the station and change direction if required.
  • Locos of loco-hauled services can run round before changing direction.
  • Freight trains in either direction can shunt the goods yard properly.
• Abandon the engine shed because they were not common at through stations and it would be a bit odd to connect directly into a running line. You could replace it with an end-loading dock, perhaps.
• Do something very simple with the goods yard - just one or maybe two sidings. No headhsunt.

Thinking about the fiddle yard: Since you've got to move stock around by hand (a sensible and necessary compromise) it probably doesn't make much difference which way it faces but there might be a small advantage in mirroring it left to right because then you could drive trains directly into storage as ITG said. You've still got to move them by hand to get them onto either of the running lines but at least facing sidings mean that you can get a train off the mainline quickly if you need to.

 

So this is where i am confused. Done the plan with your suggestions as best as i can. Flexi track is a no go, it has to be all setrack. The points dont join on the right, not sure if its plan thing or they wouldn't join in real life. If not, they would have to be on straight track. With that in mind i have two questions.

 

1. With the points i would need trains that measure between the points as any longer and then i couldn't use the points.  

 

2. Trains on outside track would need to reverse onto inside track to access goods yard, where the loco then would be blocked in the goods yard? Am i correct?

 

Track at bottom is also very close to edge, which wouldn't allow a platform, same at top.

Edited July 11, 2022 by barney121e

[Harlequin]

37 minutes ago, barney121e said:

So this is where i am confused. Done the plan with your suggestions as best as i can. Flexi track is a no go, it has to be all setrack. The points dont join on the right, not sure if its plan thing or they wouldn't join in real life. If not, they would have to be on straight track. With that in mind i have two questions.

 

1. With the points i would need trains that measure between the points as any longer and then i couldn't use the points.  

 

2. Trains on outside track would need to reverse onto inside track to access goods yard, where the loco then would be blocked in the goods yard? Am i correct?

 

Track at bottom is also very close to edge, which wouldn't allow a platform, same at top.

 

Flexitrack does not imply Streamline turnouts. Code100 flexitrack will join up to Setrack turnouts no problem - but it might not be useful here.

 

A tiny bit of adjustment will make those turnouts join correctly in real life.

 

1. Only trains that you intend to run round would need to fit within the clearance of the loop. Longer trains can just stand foul of one crossover or the other and then run on. Don't forget that a curved crossover or even a crossover off-scene in the FY are possible ways to lengthen the loop.

 

2. No, the loco would not be blocked. Goods trains on the outside track would stop in the loop, then the loco uncouples, runs around it's train, couples up to the rear and can then pull whatever wagons are needed across and propel them into the yard. That's how it was done in the real world. Hence two crossovers.

 

The tracks are close to the edges but I think there's just enough leeway to make something work with a joggle in the fiddle yard. (I'll try to draw something later.) Alternatively, could persuade the powers-that-be to give you an extra 2inches? That small extra width would be very easy to construct, take up very little extra room but make a huge difference to the layout.

 

Edited July 11, 2022 by Harlequin

[barney121e]

38 minutes ago, Harlequin said:

 

Flexitrack does not imply Streamline turnouts. Code100 flexitrack will join up to Setrack turnouts no problem - but it might not be useful here.

 

A tiny bit of adjustment will make those turnouts join correctly in real life.

 

1. Only trains that you intend to run round would need to fit within the clearance of the loop. Longer trains can just stand foul of one crossover or the other and then run on. Don't forget that a curved crossover or even a crossover off-scene in the FY are possible ways to lengthen the loop.

 

2. No, the loco would not be blocked. Goods trains on the outside track would stop in the loop, then the loco uncouples, runs around it's train, couples up to the rear and can then pull whatever wagons are needed across and propel them into the yard. That's how it was done in the real world. Hence two crossovers.

 

The tracks are close to the edges but I think there's just enough leeway to make something work with a joggle in the fiddle yard. (I'll try to draw something later.) Alternatively, could persuade the powers-that-be to give you an extra 2inches? That small extra width would be very easy to construct, take up very little extra room but make a huge difference to the layout.

 

Ok, thanks.

 

Unfortunately the extra 2 inches is a no go, as tight enough getting round a couple of the sides as is.

 

Also played with FY, but definitely need help.

Edited July 11, 2022 by barney121e
fiddle

[Harlequin]

Here you go Barney, What about something like this?

 

 

• The two end curves are R2 and R3 and they are offset so that there's room for the outer platform on the left. It tapers out to the right but I think it would work visually. The station tracks are at an angle of 4° and that means that some settrack would have to be cut to join at either end.
• I'm suggesting that the station continues under an overbridge to help it look and feel longer than it really is.
• I'm taking a punt on using two curved turnouts in the left hand end curve to be the left hand station crossover. This makes the run round loop nice and long. Best to use Peco Settrack parts if possible. This crossover is hidden in the scene but accessible from the side for dealing with problems.
• Because the left hand crossover is hidden off-scene I've made it facing instead of trailing so that it gives a bit more flexibility to run clockwise trains into the inner FY siding if you want. (This might need a bit more thought.)
• The outer circuit has a loop in the FY and there's a bit of scope to make this longer. The inner circuit doesn't have room for a loop but there's a reasonable siding and a spur for storing locos. The siding could also be made longer it if came through the backscene and was hidden by the scenery.
• The station's siding is flexitrack to give it a bit more organic feel and help it fit into the scene better.

 

Edited July 12, 2022 by Harlequin

[barney121e]

3 hours ago, Harlequin said:

 

Flexitrack does not imply Streamline turnouts. Code100 flexitrack will join up to Setrack turnouts no problem - but it might not be useful here.

 

A tiny bit of adjustment will make those turnouts join correctly in real life.

 

1. Only trains that you intend to run round would need to fit within the clearance of the loop. Longer trains can just stand foul of one crossover or the other and then run on. Don't forget that a curved crossover or even a crossover off-scene in the FY are possible ways to lengthen the loop.

 

2. No, the loco would not be blocked. Goods trains on the outside track would stop in the loop, then the loco uncouples, runs around it's train, couples up to the rear and can then pull whatever wagons are needed across and propel them into the yard. That's how it was done in the real world. Hence two crossovers.

 

The tracks are close to the edges but I think there's just enough leeway to make something work with a joggle in the fiddle yard. (I'll try to draw something later.) Alternatively, could persuade the powers-that-be to give you an extra 2inches? That small extra width would be very easy to construct, take up very little extra room but make a huge difference to the layout.

 

Or maybe something like this?

 

 

[barney121e]

10 minutes ago, Harlequin said:

Here you go Barney, What about something like this?

 

 

• The two end curves are R2 and R3 and they are offset so that there's rom for the outer platform on the left. It tapers out to the right but I think it would work visually. The station tracks are at an angle of 4° and that means that some settrack would have to be cut to join at either end.
• I'm suggesting that the station continues under an overbridge to help it look and feel longer than it really is.
• I'm taking a punt on using two curved turnouts in the left hand end curve to be the left hand station crossover. This makes the run round loop nice and long. Best to use Peco Settrack parts if possible. This crossover is hidden in the scene but accessible from the side for dealing with problems.
• Because the left hand crossover is hidden off-scene I've made it facing instead of trailing so that it gives a bit more flexibility to run clockwise trains into the inner FY siding if you want. (This might need a bit more thought.)
• The outer circuit has a loop in the FY and there's a bit of scope to make this longer. The inner circuit doesn't have room for a loop but there's a reasonable siding and a spur for storing locos. The siding could also be made longer it if came through the backscene and was hidden by the scenery.
• The station's siding is flexitrack to give it a bit more organic feel and help it fit into the scene better.

 

Just seen this, will have a play and see what i can do.

[barney121e]

Loving the plan, but cant get it to work on anyrail or scarm at the moment. Will keep trying.

[barney121e]

1 hour ago, barney121e said:

Loving the plan, but cant get it to work on anyrail or scarm at the moment. Will keep trying.

Ok @Harlequin have tried everything to get the plan to work but nothing working. If i use the curved points it changes the spacing between the tracks fiddle yard is proving a nightmare. Any suggestions?

[Harlequin]

I'll try to work it out more precisely but you'll have to give me a day or two.

 

[barney121e]

2 minutes ago, Harlequin said:

I'll try to work it out more precisely but you'll have to give me a day or two.

 

No worries

 

Thanks for all your help.

[Chimer]

Phil, don't know if it's possible, but while you're fiddling - an extra crossover top right (as shown very badly) would allow trains to change back from inner to outer circuit .......

 

 

Cheers, Chris

[DCB]

1 hour ago, Chimer said:

Phil, don't know if it's possible, but while you're fiddling - an extra crossover top right (as shown very badly) would allow trains to change back from inner to outer circuit .......

 

 

Cheers, Chris

 

I also had a play with Anyrail  and I found the standard set track geometry doesn't allow that track configuration,  as Phil said up front, but with a bit of cutting and tweaking its pretty much doable.  Even as a set track floor layout a few shortened curves and straights would allow it with a few juxtapositions of 2nd and 3rd radius curves, not necessarily the larger around the outside without recourse to 1st radius. 

My recent experience with last week's  holiday floor layout is some quite ordinary RTR 00 locos with flanges on all wheels can't get round 1st radius curves and thoroughly dislike set track points.  The only likely issue would be the curved point on the inside line which would be a facing point in the usual direction of travel and the main line is on the tighter curve, and the H/S facing point curved road,   If I was doing this as a main layout I would try to use streamline points.   As it is I am using cut down live frogged set track points on my latest mini layout and banning locos with all wheels flanged  (except 0-4-0s obviously)

[barney121e]

6 hours ago, DCB said:

 

I also had a play with Anyrail  and I found the standard set track geometry doesn't allow that track configuration,  as Phil said up front, but with a bit of cutting and tweaking its pretty much doable.  Even as a set track floor layout a few shortened curves and straights would allow it with a few juxtapositions of 2nd and 3rd radius curves, not necessarily the larger around the outside without recourse to 1st radius. 

My recent experience with last week's  holiday floor layout is some quite ordinary RTR 00 locos with flanges on all wheels can't get round 1st radius curves and thoroughly dislike set track points.  The only likely issue would be the curved point on the inside line which would be a facing point in the usual direction of travel and the main line is on the tighter curve, and the H/S facing point curved road,   If I was doing this as a main layout I would try to use streamline points.   As it is I am using cut down live frogged set track points on my latest mini layout and banning locos with all wheels flanged  (except 0-4-0s obviously)

Hi are you able to give me n idea where cuts etc would be needed? 

 

 

[Harlequin]

15 minutes ago, barney121e said:

Hi are you able to give me n idea where cuts etc would be needed? 

 

 

I'm working on it.

As I said, the station is at 4° to the baseboard edge so one end curve needs to turn 4° less than a whole semi-circle and the other needs to be 4° more. The best way to do that will probably be to take some longer curving parts and cut them slightly off centre then use one half on the left and the other half on the right.

I'll be able to tell you exactly where once I've drawn it using template parts for all the straight and curves.

 

[Chimer]

I had a go at Phil's idea in XtrackCad, with the extra crossover I suggested .... not quite as pretty but I thought it proves the geometry.

 

 

Edit:  But it didn't, i realised it was rubbish so I've deleted it and am trying again!

Edited July 14, 2022 by Chimer

[TravisM]

I was thinking that Peco's OO set track plans, plan number 6 which is 7' x 3'6" could be stretched to 8'x4' giving you a nice double track run with eased out curves and instead of a fiddle yard, some storage sidings.  It would also give you a operating well.  I was hoping to attach a copy of the layout plan I can't find one.  Maybe someone else on here can have better luck.

[barney121e]

5 hours ago, Chimer said:

I had a go at Phil's idea in XtrackCad, with the extra crossover I suggested .... not quite as pretty but proves the geometry.

 

 

Blue is Peco Set-track straights, points and 2nd radius curves, green is 3rd radius, brown is flexi to fill the gaps where necessary.

 

Note there is no 3rd radius involved in a 90 degree bend incorporating a crossover using curved points, there is a 2nd radius half curve on the crossover between the points, and a quarter straight on one end. Best studied in the catalogue!

 

Replicating said 90 degree bend from the Peco catalogue using XTC does not produce parallel tracks at Set-track centres at both ends.  This is presumably down to a tiny error in the XTC parameter file.

 

The brown curves bottom right were created using XTC's cornu curves feature and won't be able to be reproduced using Anyrail!

 

 

The plan was not to use Flexi track as ruined two pieces already as you measure, cut and then when you try and fit the rails have moved. Must look for way of cutting and bending Flexi easily maybe.

[DCB]

10 hours ago, barney121e said:

The plan was not to use Flexi track as ruined two pieces already as you measure, cut and then when you try and fit the rails have moved. Must look for way of cutting and bending Flexi easily maybe.

Welcome to my world.  Just save the ruined bit as you will inevitably have a use for it some day,  Measure carefully add a bit and file to final size is my MO.  Mark the rails so you know which is left or right. inner or outer, as its easy to shorten the wrong side. I have a load of the old pre set track "Super 4" track including some customised  shortened sections which I have cut the middle from and shortened which I use just like set track.   Using the stiffer set track rail in flexi sleepers is a good dodge for sharp curves.   

[barney121e]

 

Ok, so have managed to get a plan on anyrail from Chimer's suggestion. Still open to other thoughts though.

Quick question, normally Flexi is spaced differently to settrack but am I right to keep the settrack spacing all round?

[barney121e]

This is plan i got to.