Return Loop Fiddle/Storage Yards

[Schooner]

EDIT: TLDR for those short of time/interest click here for a brief summing up.

 

Short:

Evening all, I'm on the hunt for examples of yards within return loops. Google isn't being very helpful, so would be grateful for recommendations.

 

Thank you!

 

Long: Working up a 00 shed-filler*, I've realised I could just squeak an R2 return loop into the space. This comes with some obvious benefits in terms of scenic potential and running options, but is not compatible with the planned storage. However, the inside of the loop could house a very reasonable yard. If anyone feels like a play, I'd be dead keen to see how the talented RMWeb Design Bureau balances the various compromises required.

 

*Once again, it's fantasy layout in a real space as a design exercise only...for now :)

 

The space available:

 

(Proposed baseboard edge in blue, but this is flexible. Running line entry/exit is, unless some very compelling argument is made, not)

 

Total list of requirements (needs + wants + would likes) in rough order of desire:

• Return loop, obvs!
• Scenic run, ideally including lie-by/carriage siding
• Reception area capable of accepting/sending trains either way around the return loop, ideally directly linked to
• 2 roads capable of holding 'mainline' trains, min 3' max 4' length; max loco length c.240mm; max vehicle length c.200mm
• 2 roads capable of holding 'branch' trains, min 18" max 24" length; max loco length c.120mm; max vehicle length c.120mm
• Appropriate fiddle yard area, for marshalling and breaking of the above trains using a shunting loco (no Hand of God)
• Appropriate storage yard area for holding stock, ideally including some pre-marshalled specials like a PW train. The more the merrier!
• Connection for 1' cassette (happy for this to stick out into the aisle)
• That's quite enough, I'm sure you'll agree!

 

I'm pretty sure it's not possible to hit all the above perfectly in the space, but I'm edging towards a functional set of compromises and would benefit hugely from seeing how others approach the challenge. Unable to find many useful examples to study online, I'd be overjoyed if this thread became a useful reference for return loop storage yards more generally, but first things first...!

 

I don't think it makes any difference, but if it helps the layout which the yard is to support is a small pre-Grouping West Country BLT, with harbour branch. In terms of overall facilities think, at most, early Ilfracombe or original Kingswear. London traffic covered by a slip coach in the winter, weekend specials in the summer; fish and stone or clay out, manufactured goods and grockles in - you know the vibe.

 

Cheers, looking forward to this little exploratory journey :)

 

Schooner

 

Edited July 28, 2023 by Schooner

[RobinofLoxley]

Don't want much do you? Is that a single track approach or are there 2 as the other end certainly has 2 😂

Edited July 5, 2023 by RobinofLoxley
Extra text

[RobinofLoxley]

In practice there would be quite a lot of bracing for that but we can pretend it's self supporting for now. 

 

Funnily enough a return loop for Minories is a 'Thing' I'm sure a few people have looked at. These things are all dimension critical, a few extra mm here and there can make or break. 

 

You didn't specify track code..

[SZ]

How about incorporating this idea, the reversing loop.

 

 

Train enters the loop and clears the points

Loco detaches then continues around the loop and re-attaches, either to the set it just detached from or one in the sidings

If to a set in the sidings first clear the loop by propelling the empty set around into the sidings then pull forward around the loop and then out to the layout

 

 

 

Edited July 5, 2023 by SZ

[Flying Pig]

Much wrangling of a return loop fiddle yard in this thread:

 

 

[Schooner]

4 hours ago, RobinofLoxley said:

Don't want much do you?

No idea how else to find out how much is enough apart from definitely going too far 😎

 

Yup, single track line; I've mix-and-matched Codes (and rail profile) in SCARM to try and give us (myself) a fighting chance at the geometry. Even were I not aiming for the moon with the wishlist, if the plan were ever to become reality the tolerances are so tight that I think the only reasonable approach would be to take the scheme into Templot.

 

The corresponding component is the shed - although designing for our 12'x8', the commitment required for any layout this size would likely make it, for me, a Lifetime Layout* and thus worth 'investing' in a purpose-built home for it...almost certainly of 14-16' x 10'! If a layout works in a given space it can only be improved by increasing the footprint to allow it to breathe a little. Looking at you CJF!

 

So it's a serious investigation, but targeting the best possible answer rather than the perfect one.

 

3 hours ago, RobinofLoxley said:

...we can pretend it's self supporting for now. 

Yes please - physics will still be ready and waiting for us if we get that far!

 

3 hours ago, RobinofLoxley said:

Funnily enough a return loop for Minories is a 'Thing' I'm sure a few people have looked at. 

I think probably what I had in the back of my mind from the other day. From hazy memory of examples (including IIRC one of @Annie's fine iterations) these schemes are typically sets of curved passing/storage loops making up the return loop for trains, and a couple of simple internal straight sidings for any specials stock...?

 

22 minutes ago, SZ said:

 

 

Ah, cool! Didn't think I'd invented that cunning plan, but I'd not seen an example before (that I can recall, which is not the same thing), so thanks for sharing. 

The water-side run (home of tiny and ancient 0-4-0Ts) was to be fed by cassette via just such a reversing loop, and in terms of operation I think it would be nicest to have that as the primary means of working any 'main line' return loop too, so as to allow trains to have the longest possible scenic run each way.

 

With the opening up of the entire shed, this has inevitably developed somewhat:

(Harbour branch has its own low-level return loop and yard beneath the terminus, but as it handles only short trains of diminutive vehicles this was easily achieved. Cassette connection seems the best way to represent the junction transferring traffic between harbour and main lines?)

 

7 minutes ago, Flying Pig said:

Much wrangling of a return loop fiddle yard in this thread

Brill, ta. Brew and 15 mins to hand, ideal timing :)

[ITG]

Not yet in existence, but I have just started building a new layout, which includes a twin track roundy, with double junction off, leading to 4 storage loops on each track. The two through tracks within these yards then continue round to join each other in a hidden balloon reverse loop.  So, operationally, this means a train leaves the twin main line and enters storage yard 1, where it may or may not stop. It then continues on round the reverse loop and back to storage yard 2 (again waiting or not) and back on to main line.

One idea I had was to run dead end sidings off the reverse loop itself, either to store DMUs or light locos. Placing such sidings on the entry side of inside of the hidden reverse balloon would result in having to back trains/locos out into a visible section of open track, which didn’t seem very realistic, so I ditched that idea. 
A second idea was to place these sidings further round the reverse loop, but on the outside of it. Then alleviated the visible reversing train problem, but because these sidings then needed to curl around the outside of the balloon, it added space demands which I didn’t want to encounter. The ballon loop itself is Peco R2 curves.

Idea 3 was to double the track in the reverse loop, so there was hidden storage space in the loop, but again that extra space needed to house R3 curves was more than I wanted to use.

So all I settled on was one short spur that was 270 degrees round the reverse balloon, so thus any reversing loco would do so out of sight.

 

Maybe my aborted deliberations might help!

Ian

Edited July 5, 2023 by ITG
Typo

[RobinofLoxley]

1 hour ago, SZ said:

How about incorporating this idea, the reversing loop.

 

 

Train enters the loop and clears the points

Loco detaches then continues around the loop and re-attaches, either to the set it just detached from or one in the sidings

If to a set in the sidings first clear the loop by propelling the empty set around into the sidings then pull forward around the loop and then out to the layout

 

 

 

I don't think this fits taking 2nd radius curves as a reference they're right on the limit so only first radius will fit inside

[Schooner]

...but running lines isn't what this thread is for, so...

...is where I'm at so far. Not very pretty, taking the piss a bit with baseboard edges and radii (although 'only' down to R1) etc etc etc but I think that just about covers all the bases and almost works! The game is still trying to work out what connections are required to achieve desired running options, and then how to get those connections to fit, but I think the above is in the rough neighborhood of the right ballpark, just beyond Necker Woods (ew).

• Return loop for low-intensity out-and-back running sessions, but
• Primary operational mode to run through scenic section* both out and back, reversing in the yard loops using turnover locos
• Upper two roads >3' for long-distance services, one goods + one PAX, operated by two 'mixed traffic' locos:
  • Train departs loop to the left, around the curve out and pops out of the tunnel to emerge on-scene, travelling to the right
  • Runs into station; pilot takes carriages to lie-by or departure platform to free the train engine
  • Loco departs station, running light and tender-first (the station TT being too small for such 'large' and 'modern' machines) back through the scene, past the lie-by, into the tunnel and into the other long loop to couple to the other long-distance train.
  • In time, pilot engine takes carriages from lie-by to station departure platform, if not there already
  • 2nd loco runs light and tender first from the original loop, round the LHS, out the tunnel, past the siding and onto the station where it couples to the carriages and, in time, retraces route to take the train back into the upper loop, effectively re-setting the game
• Inner road of that upper block (running along the 3 x LH turnouts into the 3-way RH fork) is the fudgiest bit, doing service as one of the local train loops, likely through round for harbour branch traffic, and with scope to exchange trains with those three sidings without intruding too badly on-scene
• Inner curve around the left also smells a bit funny, but at least functionally can handle the other local train, and provides a route for hidden loco turning and/or running round.
• Erm what else...long sidings dictate which bit is storage yard; fuctional hidden headshunt (through the pointwork) dictates fiddle yard
• Three short sidings off the final 3-way for locos?

Not that it matters yet, but just for interest's sake (YMMV!) I think there'd be a 'proper' tunnel portal as the line comes on scene from the left, masked by the ground rising to it, some foliage, PW office or tunnel crew workshop or whatever with some rarely-need but essential maintenance vehicle in that little stub headshunt. We've then got a (slightly compressed) view of the final half-mile or so of the line as it does that West Country over-under thing with the topography and finally lands in the station*

 

For the RH stage exit, I thought perhaps it could be dressed up as a very low-quay key quarry line portal so as to stand up to at least a cursory interrogation, but in between a gentle cutting, some more trees and traffic in the tail of the lie-by it should barely register visually in the normal swing of things.

 

*Why bother building a bridge over the river only to terminate the line immediately on the other side? Original build company ran out of money, of course! The route continues, but the railway does not...the GWR, despite now owning the line outright, does not seem willing, to date, to revisit the idea. Hopefully ties links to non-standard tank engines, but 'proper' GWR long-haul locos. You know the sort of thing:

It's the Great Western, Tim

...but not as we know it.

Other excellent flavour photos here

 

Ummmm. Right, so that's my opening gambit.

 

Have at it!

 

 

[RobinofLoxley]

Just a couple of points relating to the above

 

Was going to query if your stock was going to tolerate R1 as makes a big difference having 2 loops possibly, or 1

You have already changed the depth of the plot to fit your plan. Not much point people drawing up plans if you do that. Just saying. 

[ITG]

That’s a lot of track in a confined space. My own experience suggests Anyrail (only programme I’ve used) is a little optimistic concerning what will fit where. Be careful that the theoretical plan doesn’t lead you down a garden path, although I guess you could just cut out a siding or two. As has been mentioned, are you sure about using R1 curves?

[SirBud]

Hi Schooner,

A real life example - Queensland Rail at Bowen Hills, Brisbane, Australia.

 

[DCB]

2nd radius is marginal for a lot of modern RTR which can't get round  1st radius  at all.
I sketched something basically uses settrack curves and points mixed with streamline. 2 loops with kick backs which should take 5 coaches I reckon plus a loco or around 19 wagons plus loco, plus a few sidings. Any more and they get very short    its a compromise. I don't like the spur to a cassette, it means a point in the 2nd radius curve and Set track points are about 15" radius on the curved road as they have a straight bit at the toe end.     Or just have scenery and a helix with the hidden sidings and return loop under the terminus....

 

Edited July 6, 2023 by DCB

[RobinofLoxley]

11 hours ago, ITG said:

That’s a lot of track in a confined space. My own experience suggests Anyrail (only programme I’ve used) is a little optimistic concerning what will fit where. Be careful that the theoretical plan doesn’t lead you down a garden path, although I guess you could just cut out a siding or two. As has been mentioned, are you sure about using R1 curves?

The key dimension is the fit of the R2 curves - dead fit on the originally specified board. 

[Schooner]

Just a quickie, proper reply when I've had time to engage with the excellent ideas above/found good answers to the questions.

 

First, thank you all. Already much to investigate :)

 

Second, quite right:

17 hours ago, RobinofLoxley said:

...changed the depth of the plot...

22 minutes ago, RobinofLoxley said:

...the originally specified board. 

 

But see

On 04/07/2023 at 22:36, Schooner said:

Proposed baseboard edge in blue, but this is flexible.

from the OP. Safe to say that apart from the overall dimensions (12'x8'),

 

No contributor should expect to have ideas discounted because they require further compromise - they won't be - but should expect to identify and explain those compromises if they're challenged - which they probably will be! The whole point of setting such a difficult (impossible?) design brief :)

 

One could set rigid limits on board depth, or on operational requirements and force that to define all else, but the interesting thing for me is finding where the 'best' balance of compromises. This is, of course, partly down to personal taste and that's why these semi-generic group planning threads are always so informative :)

 

All these things are games - constrained by largely arbitrary rules agreee upon by all participants as a reasonable and enjoyable balance of challenge and reward - but maybe we should think of it more as boules than basketball: Success measured by proximity to target rather than a binary success/fail of hitting it?

 

All of which is to say...

 

Thank you all, looking forward to engaging with the suggestions and examples so far!

[DCB]

Most of us have rigid limits on baseboard size, mainly because people build the train table before they design the layout, but sometimes its the size of the dining room table or the Patio or the train room, the classic being the 6X4 shed which is 5ft 6" X 3ft 6" usable space.  When I was a kid my mate's bedroom was so small he had to use small radius Triang curves, 13.5" radius for his layout and was very restricted as to the stock he could run, Bekra models in Newt and Abbott had a continuous run oval layout about 6ft X 2ft in 00 with Co Co diesels (on sub 12" radius curves but those Co Co diesels were heavily modified internally.   Conversely a lot of 1960s  all wheels flanged chassis could not manage less than 30" radius,.      Equally some people can get through a 12" gap between baseboards and some can't.      Those are fixed parameters and we need to know those critical dimensions, Where wriggle room comes in is track formations and that's where Anyrail becomes useless, because you can trim 2" or around 20% off the length of set track points and bring the spacing down from 60mm ish  to 44mm with a simple junior hacksaw and file.  My layout has 3rd radius as a minimum and 3% is grades as a maximum and cannot cope with long wheelbase 4 wheel vans . 

  Actually  2nd radius has an outside rail radius of 18" I believe, so you need 38" 2X19" to get round between baseboard edges rising above buffer heights.  However set track points are 15 or 16" radius through the curved road so 2nd radius set track can have the webs between sleepers cut and the radius reduced to 16" or thereabouts to get round in 36"  without affecting the stock which can use it.    1st radius eased out to 16 or 17 "  will allow most RTR to get round, but not some like my Bachmann 64XX though that might be newness.   The point is the Parameters need sorting as step one. Test your stock, measure your waist, measure the room, twice, and then start designing.  You can always make a design bigger but shrinking seldom works.....

[Schooner]

Forgive the immediate pushback, the aim is not to argue against the point but to develop it. Also please forgive the essay - must've been a strong coffee!

 

28 minutes ago, DCB said:

Most of us have rigid limits on baseboard size

No, most of us accept the constraints of baseboard size without question - often very sensible, but no need to take it for granted. I base this on direct recent experience with one of the examples given:

30 minutes ago, DCB said:

the size of the...table

:)

 

I've just typed then deleted a blow-by-blow account of that process, but the main point is that our 'rigid limits' are only as rigid as our time, effort and inclination to be limited by them. 

Likewise 'hard' issues like 12" gaps or 46" reach might be acceptable at one elevation but not another, or for a point but not a run, or by a door but not in the middle of the room etc. To me, it seems we're managing a balance of probabilities not a binary system, 'tho with all these things just because one can does not mean one should! Because no boundaries = no fun, shall we set targets ('tho not limits) of

• 40" max baseboard width
• 24" min aisle width (eg. encroaching on this with one board 'requires' the corresponding amount to be cut from the opposite board)
• Minimum radii* of R1 for harbour and local traffic, R2 for 'main line'
• Max train length (inc loco) 2'6" for local services, 4' for 'main line'
• Total area available 12'x8'

Which are perfect for my needs, but relaxed enough to make any resulting FY+loop design more widely useful?

 

*I'm reasonably confident all my current and much forseen stock would be perfectly happy down to 9" on transition curves. I have no Settrack to test, nor any reason to buy some, but have some flexi I can fit to radius to test in the future but see

 

Etc. 

 

Although a little nebulous, the setting is probably relevant for allowing the above constraints to exist happily together. Thoroughly rural pre-Grouping, the largest most modern (built from 1911) conceivable loco = Dapol re-release 43xx (325mm over buffers, whatever that is, 9 and a bit inches) and even that would have to be a vanishingly unlikely vanity purchase. Current brace of tender locos are actually conversions of the RTR Beattie Well Tank 2-4-0 and P Class 0-6-0, very short wheelbases. Forseen GWR engines for this scheme would be a Stella 2-4-0 

I'm wary of the fixed wheelbase length, but reasonable side play should be attainable without too much fuss, and Duke 4-4-0

Inside cylinders FTW! If it worked on the real thing, worth bearing in mind for the model :)

 

Stock to match: largely of 1850-70 construction - tiny by 'normal' standards - with limited 'modern' post-1880 6-wheel coaches and bogie stock nearer 40' than 50'. Think the GWR's Tadpoles and 38'6" carriage designs (for which some kits are available) rather than their 70' Dreadnaughts! Tank engine stud likely to be on the 'eccentric and eclectic' end of the spectrum, but nothing to startle the horses. 

 

Does that help set targets/boundaries in a useful way?

[Schooner]

FWIW for 45mm centres on planning software, I use the parallel roads out of a toe-to-heel formation of Peco Mediums as a guide:

 

 

Approved soundtrack:

 

Edited July 6, 2023 by Schooner

[DCB]

1 hour ago, Schooner said:

 

 

Etc. 

 

Although a little nebulous, the setting is probably relevant for allowing the above constraints to exist happily together. Thoroughly rural pre-Grouping, the largest most modern (built from 1911) conceivable loco = Dapol re-release 43xx (325mm over buffers, whatever that is, 9 and a bit inches) and even that would have to be a vanishingly unlikely vanity purchase. Current brace of tender locos are actually conversions of the RTR Beattie Well Tank 2-4-0 and P Class 0-6-0, very short wheelbases. Forseen GWR engines for this scheme would be a Stella 2-4-0 

I'm wary of the fixed wheelbase length, but reasonable side play should be attainable without too much fuss, and Duke 4-4-0

Inside cylinders FTW! If it worked on the real thing, worth bearing in mind for the model :)

 

Stock to match: largely of 1850-70 construction - tiny by 'normal' standards - with limited 'modern' post-1880 6-wheel coaches and bogie stock nearer 40' than 50'. Think the GWR's Tadpoles and 38'6" carriage designs (for which some kits are available) rather than their 70' Dreadnaughts! Tank engine stud likely to be on the 'eccentric and eclectic' end of the spectrum, but nothing to startle the horses. 

 

Does that help set targets/boundaries in a useful way?

Sounds good, not too far from my proposed Isle of Skye layout (pretty much pipe dream) except my stock would have been brand new around 1900, (Triang short Celestories)  supplemented by second hand stock.
There is a Bulldog and a Dukedog (both K's) on my workbench (for  the BR WR layout) and also a Metro tank waiting sorting out. None of them are very good at corners, the Dog bogie fouls the running plate if the body sits down to the correct level and the wheels are perilously close to shorting on the bottom of the running plate, I think I can get them round 19" 3rd radius but not 2nd. without stupidly small bogie wheels ,raised body, cut away running platw valances.   The Metro is a right pig to get enough sideplay on the front axle with metal wheels within the outside frames.  Plan D (A to C failed) is a rigid axle between outside frames and the wheels fitted to a hollow axle which traverses along the rigid axle,  Plan E is eBay  "Needs completing"   I believe all Hornby pre about 1985, and most pre the MN were designed for 13.5" radius, certainly the 9Fs sail round.  My 1960 ish Bob class has a close coupled drawbar position allowing 13.5" radius on the long one and almost scale spacing for 3rd radius and above.    My Dapol 43XX had tr0ouble with straight track let alone bends until I fitted GR Wrenn wagon wheels as leading wheels and later re profiled its own wheels to be coned.    Sun's shining.  Time to run the 2/00 passenger down the outside branch.

[RobinofLoxley]

Well fwiw I have worked to the original dimensions. My personal cheat was to start from a turnout at the rhs end, not the plain curve (why not) allowing two headshunts to the right of the border - in theory those can be offscene, for example going into a tunnel, although I wouldn't advise. Its already been mentioned that the real issue is that going round the inevitable loop the front end of any train that is going to reverse into any siding so the loco can run straight out again, is going to appear some distance onto the main scene. I have tried to mitigate this firstly using those shunts, which could go to the rh end of the layout in theory, and second, by having sidings where a loco can uncouple from the front of the train and another take all or some of the stock the other way. Some of those shunts are at funny angles using setrack bits. Obviously the entire space could be filled with shorter and shorter sidings but maybe you would like a dockside scene there?

 

I used short turnouts (sl-91 and 92) but they dont save a massive amount of space really.

 

Its an advantage that for DCC operations just the setrack half circle needs a reverser and that's it.

[Schooner]

On 06/07/2023 at 04:45, DCB said:

 

Allowing for the fact this is cheating and so summarily disqualified, it's hard not to see this as the answer: it gives everything desired very simply. Wary of helixes down to R2, but perhaps I needn't be - it appears to be absolutely standard for most helix kit producers, which is reassuring. Here of course we're aided by short wheelbase locos better able to handle the change in gradient  than, say, Charlie Bishop's Pacifics

and short trains of short stock to ease the haulage load. 

 

On 06/07/2023 at 16:20, RobinofLoxley said:

I have worked to the original dimensions.

🤣 Overachiever! What's the RH radius needed to get around the corner though 👀 Originally planned for scenic curves to be min 2'10", and according to the OP at least...

On 04/07/2023 at 22:36, Schooner said:

(Proposed baseboard edge in blue, but this is flexible. Running line entry/exit is, unless some very compelling argument is made, not)

...less up for debate than board size! I wasn't able to replicate loop length whilst keeping both scenic curve to the right and 3-way to the left (shame, the 3-way is an excellent solution), but trying to keep some of the benefits whilst adding another kind of cheat:

 

I've stolen from Robin's doodle as best I could whilst keeping to the previous footprint, therefore

• relies on R1 still - bespoke curved turnouts out be required to maintain R2 run for main line stock
• cheeky little headshunt! At 250mm (9 inches some) it'll just about take the threatened Dapol 43XX by way of loco release, and opens up a headshunt of about 2'4" for the Storage Yard 
• My cheat: 3'cassette across the aisle to take the second mainline/local trains. Half secret weapon, half 'well why bother with a yard at all then?'...but I think it could be a useful fudge to improve easy of operation of the layout without having to spend too much time faffing about with cassettes instead of playing trains.

The lie-by still has 3' of carriage space, but shows the maximum balance against the lie-by in favour of the spur. The idea of this is for something like:

 

Mostly for the extra traffic options, but also a bit of visuals. Does it need to be that long? Probs not, I think that's an extreme, but how long to we thing would be needed to convince?

 

In context then:

So...helixes?!

 

Happy Friday all, have a good weekend

 

Schooner

Edited July 7, 2023 by Schooner
Context

[RobinofLoxley]

You need a lot more room to create enough separation for a lower level. You have to be able to get your hands in, and reach, etc.

[Schooner]

Starting off with c.150mm separation should help :)

The extra 30mm drop is for aesthetics really, to be able to drop the land level closer to water level at the front of the layout.

 

With open-frame construction, clear access to the inside of the low-level/harbour branch return loop, and comparative ease of a lift-out section over that yard I was hoping that, whilst not ideal, access would still be plausible...?

[Schooner]

Turning to other options then, as that one sinks in:

On 05/07/2023 at 12:20, SZ said:

 

Not quite as elegant, but something along these lines perhaps

• Just about space for 2 long sidings, 2 short sidings and a loco siding - operationally we're good to go
• No fiddle options, storage only. Cassette likely to see heavy use...
• There is scope for triangle to turn locos, although this would be at the expense of siding length

Overall I think it's quite a neat and simple solution to some problems, giving some of the benefits of a return loop with little of the fuss. There's scope for a little more development, but it's pretty much what you see is what you get!

[Chimer]

I don't get the latest plan at all - the only benefit of a return loop is that it returns trains without any fiddling or shunting.  Which this doesn't ......

 

On the previous plan, I just about get it, but think including the second, hidden, route to the loop is more trouble than it's worth.  Presumably you're just wanting to be able to turn a loco without it being seen?  And I really think you need to be able to get a full train into the yard headshunt (or accept the compromise of using the main line for that purpose).