A new shed layout

[Keith Addenbrooke]

33 minutes ago, AndyB said:

 

Sorry Chimer. Didn't spot that. My bad.

Looks like 8' of horizontal to include throats at each end plus platform.

Roughly does that feel like 4 coaches and a tender loco? 

Hi Andy, a lot depends on the type of rolling stock being run.  Some stats which I hope might be helpful (if they’re right 🙂):

 

In 4mm (1:76) scale, a 57’ coach is conveniently 9” long (57 just happens to be three-quarters of 76).  Four coaches at 36”, plus up to 10” for a tender loco and a couple of inches for couplings etc. makes for a four foot train.  Of course, many coaches are longer.

 

Just under 2’ at each end for a station throat may be a bit tight if loops around island platforms are wanted, depending on complexity.  A Peco Medium point is 8.64” long and has a nominal radius of 3’ (a long point is 10.2” with a nominal radius of 4’).  Curved points going onto the ends of the curves can be used, but might make the start of the gradients trickier, or a station with pointwork mainly at one end might work - at which point I’d be asking @Harlequin and @Chimer for ideas anyway.
 

Interestingly, I’m told that the human eye (at normal viewing distance) takes in about 4’ of distance, so it could be argued that it’s OK for a local or short semi-fast train, but for an express I’d say it may still look a bit short (ideally I’d want something that extended beyond my field of vision in both directions).

 

There’s also a strange visual phenomenon that’s been discussed elsewhere, which is that a train with an odd number of coaches can look ‘better’ to some people than one with an even number - so three coaches for a local and a minimum of five for a longer train might look more pleasing to the eye (that is of course very much a personal preference).

 

When it comes to Goods Trains, most home model layouts seem to need quite extensive compression to fit the space (I think of some of the long coal or van trains on bigger exhibition layouts by way of a contrast).  
 

Hope that helps - bit random, but maybe something of use, I hope.  Keith.

Edited January 31, 2023 by Keith Addenbrooke
Grammar and Clarification

[ITG]

27 minutes ago, Keith Addenbrooke said:

do wonder if 3” headroom is enough in OO where the tracks cross.  To me that seems tight: earlier @ITG quoted 150mm (gross) giving headroom of 113mm (nett), which I think is closer to 4.5”.  That seems more like it to me?  Just a thought.

As @Harlequinsays, I deliberately over allowed for bracing. My reference point is that ready made helix board kits are often designed to work with 80mm clearance, less around 5-6mm for the ply thickness, but with no bracing in the case of helices as they are generally supported by such as threaded rods at regular intervals.

 

PS. I bought an older Hornby breakdown crane which the rather non-prototypical bar to which the chain is attached, did NOT clear my height tolerances, even though every other vehicle did. Luckily, as I didn’t intend to use it as a working crane, it was ok to flatten it a little.

Ian

[Chimer]

3 hours ago, Keith Addenbrooke said:

 

Q for @Chimer: are those 2’ radius curves in the diagram?  If so I think that’s a good idea and I wouldn’t want the minimum to go tighter: with the curves on gradients, avoiding the tightest possible curvature seems sensible to me.  

 

 

More or less!  I reckon you can get a double track round a 90 degree curve in 24" without clashes, either maintaining a 2" spacing using 22" and 24" radii, or using misaligned set-track curves for both tracks, if you don't fancy trying to bend flexi that tightly without kinks.  So to do an initial plan quickly, I just use 24" curves.

[Backintime]

4 hours ago, AndyB said:

To that end it may be time to ask Mark what kind of trains (and their lengths) he has in mind. Are we talking 2 or 3 coaches? Or 4, 5  or 6

Hi Andy,

 

Ideally, I would like to run a rake of 8 coaches, but that is obviously not achievable.

 

I would be more than happy with 3 x 60ft coaches behind a Castle class loco, I realise that a layout of this size will require compromise.

 

Cheers

Mark

[Backintime]

4 hours ago, Keith Addenbrooke said:

Question for our host - in an earlier post an existing track collection is mentioned: is that Setrack or Flextrack?  To my mind, using Flextrack and larger points is the easiest way to get away from something that looks like a Train Set, which is mentioned as something you’d like to do

Hi Keith,

 

To be honest, I think most of the track I have (setrack) is destined to be used for static display only. There is a lot of corrosion on the running surface of the rails and there seems to be a fair bit of play on the blades of the points. 
 

Long and short of it, I will be investing in new track!

You comments regarding a fiddle yard are noted.

 

Cheers

Mark

[AndyB]

OK. So based on Keith's sizingsthatd roughly be 40" in length. Approximately 1/3 the overall lenof the layout. That doesn't seem unreasonable or unrealistic to me. 

 

I think Phil asked earlier if you had single track or double track in mind? 

 

I guess the next question is, when the train isn't doing circuits where will it be? I'd certainly co sider a FY even if it is modest in size; just somewhere for trains to disappear to. And how many trains will you have on the layout? 

 

[Backintime]

5 hours ago, Harlequin said:

Another question for @Backintime: Do you want a single track (rural/branch line) or double track (main line) circuit?

Hi Phil,

 

well that is an interesting question….. do you think that it is possible to fit a double track circuit in this space?

 

I am tending towards a rural branch line with a passing loop if possible 

 

Mark

 

 

 

 

[Harlequin]

25 minutes ago, Backintime said:

Hi Phil,

 

well that is an interesting question….. do you think that it is possible to fit a double track circuit in this space?

 

I am tending towards a rural branch line with a passing loop if possible 

 

Mark

 

 

Yes, definitely. Possibly even as a folded figure of eight.

 

[Backintime]

1 hour ago, AndyB said:

OK. So based on Keith's sizingsthatd roughly be 40" in length. Approximately 1/3 the overall lenof the layout. That doesn't seem unreasonable or unrealistic to me. 

 

I think Phil asked earlier if you had single track or double track in mind? 

 

I guess the next question is, when the train isn't doing circuits where will it be? I'd certainly co sider a FY even if it is modest in size; just somewhere for trains to disappear to. And how many trains will you have on the layout? 

 

Hi Andy,

you make a couple of good points here and tbh, I hadn’t thought of how many trains/locos I would have on the layout.

 

In answer to Phil’s question, I am leaning toward a single track with a passing loop, however, if there were two loops, they would be the beginnings of a fiddle yard.

 

Now that you have asked your questions , it makes good sense to have one
 

Mark

 

[Chimer]

But note a fiddle yard will need another 8 feet or so of flat track which won't be available for gradients.  And if you think about putting the station on the higher level with the fiddle yard  underneath it, you're then back to needing 4+ inches of height gain as opposed to 3 (and quite a bit more if you actually want to get your hands in to fiddle).  I've been round this loop so many times myself trying to fit something similar into a space quite a bit bigger (14' x 8'), and never achieved anything that (a) I was confident I could put together, (b) would deliver what I want operationally and (c) used gradients no worse than 1 in 50.

 

It's all compromise .....

Edited January 31, 2023 by Chimer

[AndyB]

So the reality seems to be...

1. Have a double loop for a long continuous run, with a station, but no real ability to have more than a small handful of trains.

2. A country station on a single loop continuous run with FY.

3. A country junction station on a single loop continuous run with a small branch line terminus above part of the circuit.

4. Something I've not thought of?

 

Thinking about single vs double track for a moment. Single tracks shouldn't be conflated with bucolic. For example (and there'll be dozens of other examples) the Mid Hants Railway often saw big engines with pilots and intense operation; and cgslkrnging gradients. 

 

My thinking is a double track in this space may be difficult to make believable with a rural setting? 

[Keith Addenbrooke]

10 hours ago, Chimer said:

But note a fiddle yard will need another 8 feet or so of flat track which won't be available for gradients.  And if you think about putting the station on the higher level with the fiddle yard  underneath it, you're then back to needing 4+ inches of height gain as opposed to 3 (and quite a bit more if you actually want to get your hands in to fiddle).  I've been round this loop so many times myself trying to fit something similar into a space quite a bit bigger (14' x 8'), and never achieved anything that (a) I was confident I could put together, (b) would deliver what I want operationally and (c) used gradients no worse than 1 in 50.

 

It's all compromise .....

Good points as always.

 

One trick that can be used at this point of trying to decide what’s most important is to look at track plans for smaller spaces, where big compromises already been made, and then stretching one a bit into this space.  Just a thought.

 

If needed, a couple of sources of plan books that can be bought online and downloaded are Peco’s Track Plan books, and BRM magazine did a trio of plan books a while back too.  Here on RMweb, @Harlequin has a gallery of ideas both larger and smaller too, as well as the many threads in this Forum (an internet search for track plan ideas may give plenty of results, but I’ve found a lot will be for expanded train sets).

 

Much better to work through the problems that arise here, rather committing time, energy and money unproductively.  One suggestion I’ve often made which also works for me is to do some model building while planning - a kit or a diorama or a small test track even, just so there’s something practical going on alongside the conversation.  Means I’m not just waiting.

 

Hope that helps, Keith.

[RobinofLoxley]

14 hours ago, Chimer said:

 

More or less!  I reckon you can get a double track round a 90 degree curve in 24" without clashes, either maintaining a 2" spacing using 22" and 24" radii, or using misaligned set-track curves for both tracks, if you don't fancy trying to bend flexi that tightly without kinks.  So to do an initial plan quickly, I just use 24" curves.

My personal opinion here is that in a relatively limited space where much of the track laying and construction will be in corners that it would be a mistake to use anything other than setrack curves in the corners and setrack spacing. It might be possible to ease the curves out in one corner for a more scenic look. Otherwise a lot of time will be devoted to correcting all the mistakes.

 

This opinion does not extend to the use of setrack curved points

Edited February 1, 2023 by RobinofLoxley

[Schooner]

This is the rough scheme* which sprang to mind as soon as @Chimer posted his:

 

*A bit rushed, just managed to get it posted before laptop died!

 

Bitsa station - excuses 8 carriage trains

Station loops - train storage

High-level station?

Siding - stock siding and/or cassette road

Twin-track (mainline) and single track (branch) circuits; could be a single run or separate.

 

Rough and ready, and not sure it's a good idea but it's what occured whilst scanning the thread.

 

 

Edited February 1, 2023 by Schooner
More info edited in by phone

[ITG]

22 minutes ago, Schooner said:

This is the rough scheme* which sprang to mind as soon as @Chimer posted his:

 

*A bit rushed, just managed to get it posted before laptop died!

 

Bitsa station - excuses 8 carriage trains

Station loops - train storage

High-level station?

Siding - stock siding and/or cassette road

Twin-track (mainline) and single track (branch) circuits; could be a single run or separate.

 

Rough and ready, and not sure it's a good idea but it's what occured whilst scanning the thread.

 

 

Looks like an interesting / unusual junction on the bottom there. And if I estimate correctly, you have maybe 2m max track between that junction and the high point of the bridge top left. Unless you have also raised the twin track at the bottom to be higher than the station, in that 2m at 2% you can only climb about 40mm - which is too low for 00 gauge. But maybe the twin track climbs to something like 40mm,  and then back down again? 
Personally, I’d  want  more sidings (hidden and/or visible) to hold stock.

But it has the beginnings of something which could work.

[Keith Addenbrooke]

38 minutes ago, Schooner said:

This is the rough scheme* which sprang to mind as soon as @Chimer posted his:

 

*A bit rushed, just managed to get it posted before laptop died!

 

Bitsa station - excuses 8 carriage trains

Station loops - train storage

High-level station?

Siding - stock siding and/or cassette road

Twin-track (mainline) and single track (branch) circuits; could be a single run or separate.

 

Rough and ready, and not sure it's a good idea but it's what occured whilst scanning the thread.

 

 

An interesting proposal that shows one way to use the space, as @ITG notes.  Shame the door is middle of the bottom wall - if only it were centre right!  I like the way this offers a mix of single and double track though, Keith.

[RobinofLoxley]

What @Schooner's proposal seems to show is that a flat scheme has a bit to reccommend it. Within the confines specified, if you want to have a folded loop and a level lift-out there's going to be precious little flat area to place a station and separately, some sidings or storage. Given it was done quickly, it needs a few changes - that rather odd junction can be replaced by the sequence double slip double slip and moved to the right compared to where its shown; this gets another 0.5M to use for climbing. Its also possible to drop the main lines 2 cm either side of the station, but of course the rising line is in front of the falling ones for half a circuit of the room and I cant see that as a good idea. On the curved station approach it would be asking for trouble to use setrack curved turnouts imho, however there is space to realign that bit.

 

Also someone has got to build it.

[Schooner]

3 hours ago, ITG said:

...in that 2m at 2% you can only climb about 40mm...

Spot on, whilst the other line drops 40mm to give 80mm clearance where the lines cross. It doesn't need 80mm, but a little wiggle room seemed a good idea for this little feasibility study.

 

3 hours ago, ITG said:

Personally, I’d  want  more sidings (hidden and/or visible) to hold stock.

Your wish...

Which is, obviously, ridiculous. Not proposed as a serious plan* but perhaps it'll spark off a bright idea from someone. It does at least show there are storage options.

*And still rough, still rushed. No effort made to reconcile junction or top level yard etc. Scenic suggestions are excuses only.

 

3 hours ago, Keith Addenbrooke said:

if only it were centre right

25 minutes ago, RobinofLoxley said:

moved to the right compared to where its shown

True true, but SCARM suggests it is at least feasible to have a level section by the door which is the important bit. 2% is well within what I believe are deemed 'normal' tolerances. Re. junctions, if it's going to be part of a scenic section then there's room for a 'better' junction than a brace of double slips...although I appreciate that's yet to be demonstrated!

 

45 minutes ago, RobinofLoxley said:

On the curved station approach it would be asking for trouble to use setrack curved turnouts imho

No idea, never used them. If that was all that was holding a layout back I'd hand-build (or commission) pointwork for best fit. Crook Street (7mm) has savage curvature on its hand-built approach, but is utterly glorious and runs well by all accounts. I think Everard Junction (00) might use curved pointwork in FY/station approach and sees a lot of traffic. Also a good example of the kind of 'bitsa' I had in mind with this plan.

 

On curvature, there's room for a smooth curve around the RHS of the layout (if not both sides). This would net a continuous inner radius of something like 800mm, and could be well worth considering.

 

28 minutes ago, RobinofLoxley said:

What @Schooner's proposal seems to show is that a flat scheme has a bit to recommend it.

45 minutes ago, RobinofLoxley said:

Also someone has got to build it.

Indeed!

 

Anyway, just a thought on seeing Chimer's scheme. Back to lurking :) 

[AndyB]

I'd tend to agree with RoL.

 

Basically, just because you can do something doesn't mean it's necessarily the best thing to do.

 

I'd suggest revisiting the idea of a station on a continuous run plus FY; perhaps even a Denny-style fiddle yard behind the station. This would keep the maximum of the remaning space for scenic development; not forgetting the canal scene you were after.

 

I suspect the end result will be achievable and fun to operate. 

 

[Harlequin]

Here's a sketch of a double-track folded figure of eight with station, FY and max gradient of 1:60.

 

The rising and falling labels refer to the inner, anticlockwise line of the double-track pair.

 

The outermost double track lines would use tighter radii where they are hidden but might open up (and move in from the walls) to become scenic in places.

 

The innermost double track lines that fall from the overbridge into the station are all scenic and so use wider curves.

 

Since all four tracks crossing the entrance are on gradients, they are carried on a gate-style opening section, that will help to maintain their alignment.

 

Edited February 1, 2023 by Harlequin

[RobinofLoxley]

I can just imagine @chimer cursing over his tea and biscuits seeing this, as he's probably produced something near identical. I dropped the idea beyond the paper and pencil level. I have no experience but I'm not sure that I like the idea of a sight line with a track falling left to right in front of another track rising left to right.

[RobinofLoxley]

Well @backintime plenty to digest. I took @Schooner's first plan in a different direction but to no great surprise his second version developed a little bit the same way.

 

I decided to keep the interior flat, with the simplest lift-out. The coloured branch lines at each end should rise - much easier to have the height at the back. I envisage those lines being run as a shuttle style operation but the orange central part as well as providing a link with the rest of the layout forms a passing bay so that 2 or three units, either a flying banana or 1/2 car dmu's, can operate. 

 

Having said stick to setrack radius curves I broke my own advice on almost every area, mainly through trying to keep second radius curves off the plan. Theres one at the moment, just for fun. It can be done with 2/3/4 then flexi outside those if required, where the wider radius makes it easier to work with them.

[Harlequin]

1 hour ago, RobinofLoxley said:

I can just imagine @chimer cursing over his tea and biscuits seeing this, as he's probably produced something near identical. I dropped the idea beyond the paper and pencil level.

 

Ah yes... Sorry @Chimer, it is very similar to your single track version, isn't it!

 

Still, I think it shows that a double-track folded figure of 8 is feasible in the space - with enough leeway to have some proper railway features.

 

1 hour ago, RobinofLoxley said:

I have no experience but I'm not sure that I like the idea of a sight line with a track falling left to right in front of another track rising left to right.

 

That is an inherent problem with a folded figure of eight of course. The gradients are quite shallow and with parts of the outer circuit hidden, parts obscured by foliage and parts separated enough horizontally I don't think you would actually notice it very much.

 

[RobinofLoxley]

5 minutes ago, Harlequin said:

Ah yes... Sorry @Chimer, it is very similar to your single track version, isn't it!

 

Still, I think it shows that a double-track folded figure of 8 is feasible in the space - with enough leeway to have some proper railway features.

 

 

That is an inherent problem with a folded figure of eight of course. The gradients are quite shallow and with parts of the outer circuit hidden, parts obscured by foliage and parts separated enough horizontally I don't think you would actually notice it very much.

 

I really meant a V2 might be on the drawing board. Having to work out the gradients properly and allow for a lift-out is very different from a proving it's theoretically doable kind of quick sketch. 

 

[Chimer]

1 hour ago, RobinofLoxley said:

I really meant a V2 might be on the drawing board. Having to work out the gradients properly and allow for a lift-out is very different from a proving it's theoretically doable kind of quick sketch. 

 

 

I did work out the gradients properly (didn't arrive at a level 1.64" above datum across the door for the lift-out by accident!), but only really did the first plan to illustrate what we meant by a "folded eight" and what the implications were ....  No intentions then or now of developing this one any further (unless asked by the OP!)