Improving a Hornby Trackmat Plan

[LNER_Fan]

Greetings from across the Atlantic - I'm a US-based HO modeller, with a long-time secondary interest in British steam. Even managed to catch 60103 in full scale @ Paddington on a recent holiday to London; it was the highlight of the trip for my son as well.

That has inspired me to grab a FS set from Hornby in their new TT:120 range, with the goal of building a small exhibition-style layout that can fit on a table top, and be fit under a bed or similar when not in use.

Continuous running is a requirement to keep my son's interest (and I don't mind a nice railfan myself TBH), so roundy-round it is.

I thought the Hornby TT:120 trackmat plan based on a R3/R2 double-track loop wasn't horrible, but I have a touch more room (3'x5') and thought I could add a bit more operational interest and fix some of the design challenges (facing points, lack of trailing crossovers). Top plan is the original Hornby TT:120 plan, bottom plan is my modifications.

The concept is that the bottom of the revised plan will have a through passenger terminal good for 4-5 coaches, and the trailing points off to the engine shed @ right. The top half of the loop will represent the freight area, with a goods shed, coal yard and possibly industry (gasworks maybe?) on the various sidings. I *tried* to respect the fact that UK railways severely disliked facing points on the main, and added a second trailing crossover between the up and down mains to make a sizable passing loop. The left hand curve and central area of the layout will incorporate some kind of scenic block/tunnel arrangement to disguise the loop and increase the credibility at least a bit.

Very open to comments/suggestions on ways to improve the plan, without giving up on continuous running, the scale, or the basic size of the base.

 

Cheers,

-Paul

[Flying Pig]

Can you work up something based on this (very rough - sorry) sketch?  The main loop is R3/R4 to allow for an R2 goods line on the inside, which can act as a shunt neck for the goods sidings (top) and possibly loco shed (bottom). Yes it means a facing point at the junction for the goods line, but these did exist.  You recover some space for the slightly larger loop by omitting the connection to the loco shed in the original plan.

 

The passenger station is a fiddle as the platforms disappear under a building on a bridge and so part of the train hides under the scenic break at the right of the loop.  This does mean you only see the loco on trains running clockwise when stopped in the station, which may be a sticking point for younger viewers.  BTW you can use the crossovers on opposite sides of the layout to run round a train stopped in the station, once Hornby provide locos with couplings at both ends (or a turntable!).

 

I've drawn up this plan before for different scales but I'm not totally sure it will work for the track and space you have.

 

[LNER_Fan]

Indeed! Neat suggestion, and here's what I've worked out, since I can juuuust about fit a R4 outer oval in the allotted space by removing most of the elements 'outside' the loop.

 

The station would go as you suggest, with the platforms running from the goods loop points into the curve on the lower right. Engine shed and loco facilities branch off the new goods loop, and there's even room for an eventual turntable when something suitable exists in TT.

 

Aside from the larger radius, which is always good, I see an advantage in this plan that the goods loop and small yard could be worked with a train running on the main line loop(s).

[33C]

How about an island platform on one or both of the curves like the Great Central? This means the two platforms from the one station pack can make two stations, ad a genuine reason to have road overbridges for station buildings. Also, it leaves the straight sections free for all or any point work to yards, sheds etc. (or a long, curved siding for your "Windcutter"!

[Guest]

I would definitely go for a radius 4 loop over the radius 2 loop if you have the room. 
 

If you added a short curve (half r3 or r4) between the crossover and points forming the top three sidings you might be able to fit in a short platform top right on both lines, starting on the straight and curving around the loop. By curving the sidings in, you would still be able to fit the  length of the sidings in. 

[Kris]

 

This is what I have done with a Hornby Trackmat track plan for my children. admittedly this is OO but the plans are the same that Hornby use in OO and TT. If you lost the level crossing you could reverse the crossover. The other difference that I made was to insert a very short straight into the curves. I don't know how viable this is in TT. 

[RobinofLoxley]

It seems to me that the most important parameter here is the size of the space - 5' x 3', not so much the original trakmat plan. So I have gone right off piste. My version of Anyrail has only Peco units in TT, and the palette is two sizes of turnout, a crossover and a flexitrack length, which I used to make my own curves, not having the setrack parameters to hand.

 

I didnt see why two parallel circuits were needed, I felt that using the corners, plus having more interesting features than some very short sidings, could in the longer term be more interesting for a developing child. Its more like a freehand drawing, hence the red zones (curve radius too small). So there are lots of reversing moves, trains can take it in turns to run, and the goods yard moves happen while trains are in the station. 

[LNER_Fan]

I've been re-thinking my plan and came up with something new that has less track. No more full double-track circuit; it's a single-track main with the RH half as a passing loop, some good portion of which will become the station platform(s). Off both ends of the loop there are fewer, but longer, goods sidings - which I imagine will house some combination of goods shed, yard, and coal depot.

 

As much as possible, I've tried to take out train-set symmetry. The track is no longer square to the base edges, but subtly offset at an angle, the straights curve slightly wherever possible, and the sidings all come off at non-parallel angles.

 

I think it will make a better impression than having track 3, and even 4, lines deep in some places on such a small space...

[kevinlms]

On 21/07/2023 at 06:13, RobinofLoxley said:

It seems to me that the most important parameter here is the size of the space - 5' x 3', not so much the original trakmat plan. So I have gone right off piste. My version of Anyrail has only Peco units in TT, and the palette is two sizes of turnout, a crossover and a flexitrack length, which I used to make my own curves, not having the setrack parameters to hand.

 

I didnt see why two parallel circuits were needed, I felt that using the corners, plus having more interesting features than some very short sidings, could in the longer term be more interesting for a developing child. Its more like a freehand drawing, hence the red zones (curve radius too small). So there are lots of reversing moves, trains can take it in turns to run, and the goods yard moves happen while trains are in the station. 

Yes I agree, starting with the space available, is far more important than modifying something printed, even though it might appear convenient.

I'm not interested in TT, so I can't comment on what the geography of available trackwork there is.

[Chimer]

8 hours ago, LNER_Fan said:

I've been re-thinking my plan and came up with something new that has less track. No more full double-track circuit; it's a single-track main with the RH half as a passing loop, some good portion of which will become the station platform(s). Off both ends of the loop there are fewer, but longer, goods sidings - which I imagine will house some combination of goods shed, yard, and coal depot.

 

As much as possible, I've tried to take out train-set symmetry. The track is no longer square to the base edges, but subtly offset at an angle, the straights curve slightly wherever possible, and the sidings all come off at non-parallel angles.

 

I think it will make a better impression than having track 3, and even 4, lines deep in some places on such a small space...

 

I think that looks a lot better.   Noting that the inner pair of sidings bottom left can be shunted using the inner loop as your headshunt, with another train still running round the outer loop, I would be tempted to stick a third siding into the fan there to give more shunting options/constraints/fun.  And I would suggest you need a short straight before the S-bend on the top right siding, so you can fit a standard uncoupling unit there.

 

Also, I would rotate the whole thing about 20 degrees anti-clockwise and move the two short sidings (which look like an engine shed to me) from bottom left to top left, accessed via a trailing point off the top end of the outer loop rather than the facing point off the bottom end as you have at present.   But that's really a bit nit-picking when the main aim is having fun ....

 

Cheers, Chris