Revisiting track plans 8 x 4

[barney121e]

7 hours ago, Chimer said:

 

That's very similar to the "other version" I mentioned I'd done, a few posts back.  I actually prefer it to the plan I posted there, but it might be a bit trickier to get the two tracks nicely aligned and parallel throughout.  Here's that version, with the measuring grid showing this time ....

 

This one does have the advantage of flexi joining setrack both ends. 

 

I have a couple of questions for you and @Harlequin

 

1. What could i use the line bottom right for?

 

2. At the Ypoint, does it have to be a goods yard, could it just be an engine shed? it will be a heritage line if that makes a difference.

[Flying Pig]

I had a go at @Chimer's "other version", substituting Streamline small radius points on the visible part of the layout.  It needs a bit more cutting of flexitrack to fit the lengths, however.

 

On the diagram, blue is R2, green is R3, red is straight flexi cut to the lengths shown and pink is the transition curve to fit in as before.  All points are Streamline small radius and the sidings can be any track you like.

 

To answer @barney121e's questions:

 

1 - I left out the siding bottom right because it doesn't fit the curves easily and I don't know what you would do with it in the context of a heritage railway either;

 

2 - on a heritage railway, any siding can be an engine shed and former goods yards often are!

 

[Chimer]

5 hours ago, barney121e said:

I have a couple of questions for you and @Harlequin

 

1. What could i use the line bottom right for?

 

2. At the Ypoint, does it have to be a goods yard, could it just be an engine shed? it will be a heritage line if that makes a difference.

 

1.  It's always been there from the first idea, so I left it in.  It could be a loco servicing siding, or serve a mini-industry although shunting it wouldn't be easy.

 

2.  You can put anything you want in the middle!  Personally I would have a goods yard with 3 sidings and a headshunt, so I could shunt the yard and have trains circulating at the same time.  But the general weight of opinion pointed towards a simpler setup with no headshunt.  But if you want an engine shed of some sort, go for it .....

[Harlequin]

12 hours ago, barney121e said:

This one does have the advantage of flexi joining setrack both ends. 

 

I have a couple of questions for you and @Harlequin

 

1. What could i use the line bottom right for?

 

2. At the Ypoint, does it have to be a goods yard, could it just be an engine shed? it will be a heritage line if that makes a difference.

 

1. It's there to add operational interest. Even if it only gets used very rarely I think it would be worth keeping. It might have been an end-loading dock or a cattle dock in steam days. In present days it might be overgrown with weeds and used for storing failed wagons.

 

2. Whatever you like but it would originally have been a goods yard and if you keep that in mind then it should help the realism. For instance, how the two sidings are aligned and whether they splay apart or stay side by side.

 

[barney121e]

10 hours ago, Chimer said:

 

1.  It's always been there from the first idea, so I left it in.  It could be a loco servicing siding, or serve a mini-industry although shunting it wouldn't be easy.

 

2.  You can put anything you want in the middle!  Personally I would have a goods yard with 3 sidings and a headshunt, so I could shunt the yard and have trains circulating at the same time.  But the general weight of opinion pointed towards a simpler setup with no headshunt.  But if you want an engine shed of some sort, go for it .....

How much of a problem would it be to design a goods yard as you suggest? Just so i have different options.

 

4 hours ago, Harlequin said:

 

1. It's there to add operational interest. Even if it only gets used very rarely I think it would be worth keeping. It might have been an end-loading dock or a cattle dock in steam days. In present days it might be overgrown with weeds and used for storing failed wagons.

 

2. Whatever you like but it would originally have been a goods yard and if you keep that in mind then it should help the realism. For instance, how the two sidings are aligned and whether they splay apart or stay side by side.

 

1. Thats a great idea, like the overgrown siding.

 

2. Would it look strange to have have the sidings split, one to engine shed and one to goods yard (maybe add a second line)?

[barney121e]

Just connected up some pieces, used setrack just for now. From edge of board to track is 75mm. Gives me a rough idea.

[barney121e]

Would the building positions work?

[Chimer]

I suspect the signal cabin might be better on the outside, so down 6" and right 18", just to give the signalman a better view round the bend.

 

Looking at the photo, the sooner a very very gentle curve away from the baseboard edge can start, the better.  Best done by eye rather than computer, I think .....

 

Cheers, Chris

[Chimer]

12 hours ago, barney121e said:

How much of a problem would it be to design a goods yard as you suggest? Just so i have different options.

 

Missed this question .... just look back at page 1 of your "any enlargement suggestions" thread.  Your own plan in the very first post is how I would design my yard, just adding a third siding to the fan.  So you just stick another point between the one leading into the yard, and the "Y", which gives you the headshunt.  In the rest of the thread, everybody had their two pennies worth about the desirability or otherwise of a headshunt and eventually it disappeared, which was in accordance with the general consensus.  But I like shunting - you don't, so headshunt probably not worth the hassle - and certainly not worth going over the argument again!

[barney121e]

16 hours ago, Chimer said:

I suspect the signal cabin might be better on the outside, so down 6" and right 18", just to give the signalman a better view round the bend.

 

Looking at the photo, the sooner a very very gentle curve away from the baseboard edge can start, the better.  Best done by eye rather than computer, I think .....

 

Cheers, Chris

The gentle curve is giving me slight nightmare have added a small curve on left and shortened straight slightly so a piece of flexi will fit.

 

Not decided on goods yard/engine area yet, but will sort it out.

 

Thanks to you, @Harlequinand everyone else who has helped get this far, the plan is exactly what i want, which is the most important thing.

[barney121e]

So after lots of joining, unjoining, cutting flexi, throwing it away with many expletives decided to stick with solely setrack. In the future will revisit flexi but for now i am happy how plan is looking.

 

First pic is front of layout, second is the fiddle yard area. Although against the wall it is movable but will definitely fit a piece of ply at back to stop trains falling off.

[ITG]

I’d check the long vehicle overhang on those inner curves as they pass the end of the two spurs on the inside edge of the FY, don’t actually foul either stock on the spur, or even a buffer stop there.

[RobinofLoxley]

Barney have you got any track guages? If not you need some setrack gauge ones, which are widely available.

[barney121e]

48 minutes ago, ITG said:

I’d check the long vehicle overhang on those inner curves as they pass the end of the two spurs on the inside edge of the FY, don’t actually foul either stock on the spur, or even a buffer stop there.

Yeah, i can curve them round slightly, dont look so close on the software.

 

17 minutes ago, RobinofLoxley said:

Barney have you got any track guages? If not you need some setrack gauge ones, which are widely available.

Yeah got the peco one, spacing is nearly right, might just need an adjustment here and there.

[RobinofLoxley]

16 minutes ago, barney121e said:

Yeah, i can curve them round slightly, dont look so close on the software.

 

Yeah got the peco one, spacing is nearly right, might just need an adjustment here and there.

A single gauge doesnt help you to lay tracks parallel, only to identify spots where it is or isnt in gauge. With four, you could establish that complete lines are parallel to each other. You also need notice board pins, a box of the long coloured ones, to hold track in position while you lay other sections.

Edited July 25, 2022 by RobinofLoxley

[barney121e]

1 hour ago, RobinofLoxley said:

A single gauge doesnt help you to lay tracks parallel, only to identify spots where it is or isnt in gauge. With four, you could establish that complete lines are parallel to each other. You also need notice board pins, a box of the long coloured ones, to hold track in position while you lay other sections.

It is only laid loose at the moment for testing to start with, which has been positive. Because it is a dcc layout i will need to solder droppers etc but just wanted to make sure a train runs ok on it.

[Chimer]

Glad you've got something you're happy with.  Let us know, sometime down the line, how it works for you operationally.

 

Cheers, Chris

[barney121e]

On 25/07/2022 at 23:19, Chimer said:

Glad you've got something you're happy with.  Let us know, sometime down the line, how it works for you operationally.

 

Cheers, Chris

Well just a little update. Been testing the layout plan and seems to run fine. Been having difficulty deciding where to base it, as because it will be a heritage line i wanted to make the buildings fit the area. However have come across some Highland Line buildings i like so that would seem to be the way ahead. Have also added a Y point to plan, and does seem to suit the plan better.

 

However recently reread a book about the Quintinshill rails disaster. It's a great read if anyone is interested. However the track plan is interesting with a up and down line and sidings on both sides. It's quite a bleak area so buildings would be limited to a signal box, and a small farm. Only issue is i would need to build stock, which although not out of the question, which would take some time. It is also on the mainline so running it as a heritage line might prove difficult. But any ideas how it might work would be of interest.

 

Cheers

 

Dave

 

 

[Flying Pig]

The loops are very short - much too short IMO to be convincing.

[barney121e]

38 minutes ago, Flying Pig said:

The loops are very short - much too short IMO to be convincing.

Is that for the second plan? If so, i think the more i think about it that plan needs more room, which could be available in the future, so might be best to stay with the first plan for now.

[Flying Pig]

Just now, barney121e said:

Is that for the second plan? If so, i think the more i think about it that plan needs more room, which could be available in the future, so might be best to stay with the first plan for now.

 

Yes - for the 'Quintinshill' plan.