Good track plan?

[InterCity110]

[Dungrange]

Well, I don't think much of it.  It only looks as though you could shuttle two car multiple units or single locomotives between the various terminal roads.  The critical ones to the left can't hold anything longer than a 600 mm (2ft) train.  Some of the random sidings aren't even long enough to hold any from of multiple unit, so it's difficult to see what their purpose is.  There is no ability to run round, so locomotive hauled trains aren't an option.  There is also a few locations where proper track centres haven't been maintained (particularly the reverse curves at the bottom), so it is likely that opposing movements on adjacent lines will result in whatever rolling stock you intend running to come into contact with whatever is on the other line.

 

There is no indication of baseboard sizes and access, but I'd guess that if you were to try to build it, the middle part of the layout may be hard to get at for track cleaning and sorting derailments.

 

Does it achieve what you want it to achieve?  What are your priorities? 

[InterCity110]

4 minutes ago, Dungrange said:

Well, I don't think much of it.  It only looks as though you could shuttle two car multiple units or single locomotives between the various terminal roads.  The critical ones to the left can't hold anything longer than a 600 mm (2ft) train.  Some of the random sidings aren't even long enough to hold any from of multiple unit, so it's difficult to see what their purpose is.  There is no ability to run round, so locomotive hauled trains aren't an option.  There is also a few locations where proper track centres haven't been maintained (particularly the reverse curves at the bottom), so it is likely that opposing movements on adjacent lines will result in whatever rolling stock you intend running to come into contact with whatever is on the other line.

 

There is no indication of baseboard sizes and access, but I'd guess that if you were to try to build it, the middle part of the layout may be hard to get at for track cleaning and sorting derailments.

 

Does it achieve what you want it to achieve?  What are your priorities? 

The lower left siding and lower right ones are actually branches off, I will probably look to expand as this is using the lower estimate for the space I have to model (I’m using the iPhone measure app) and if I get more space I’ll look to expand it. What exactly are turnaround facilities, as I was going to have a loco come in from the TMD (middle sidings) and come in to pick the coaches up.

[brossard]

As far as I can tell, you haven't said what your operating interests are.  I assume you like passenger trains, but goods traffic can be very absorbing with shunting to make up trains, spot wagons to where they're needed etc.

 

What about facilities?  Where's the station, engine shed, goods yard?

 

John

[InterCity110]

6 minutes ago, brossard said:

As far as I can tell, you haven't said what your operating interests are.  I assume you like passenger trains, but goods traffic can be very absorbing with shunting to make up trains, spot wagons to where they're needed etc.

 

What about facilities?  Where's the station, engine shed, goods yard?

 

John

My layout will be both 1990s and 1970s southern WCMI, the station is top left, the goods yard is top right and TMD is middle. This is just the scenic area, there is a non scenic area where trains will run round a loop.

[DCB]

Looks more like an industrial  complex like a steelworks where lots of shunters endlessly shunt wagons around aimlessly.   Could be the bottom half of a continuous run  I suppose  but  scope for realistic WCML type operations just does not exist.
Investing in a few C.J Freezer   60 plans for small Railways/ Large railways etc books might give some pointers but any layout where trains don't have anywhere to go to or from doesn't generally work too well.  Unless you like endless pointless shunting, and lots of people do, or pretend to because they don't have room for anything else.

[The Johnster]

I don’t like it much either; I can’t think of any prototypical trackplan that it bears any resemblance to.  There is no ‘offstage’ fiddle yard storage, and the sidings and platform roads are too short for any useful purpose with modern stock (bogie goods, 75’ coaches &c).  Your TMD roads are far too close together, look at a real TMD, and everything else is too far apart except the reverse curve collision point

 at the bottom already mentioned.

 

Tbh, it looks as if you’ve got a collection of setrack and have tried to devise a way of using all of it in a given space, with apparently no regard to prototype practice or operation.  Sorry, but I think it’s best to give you it straight.  Build this and I’ll virtually guarantee that you’ll be unhappy with it, because it won’t look right and you won’t be able to replicate prototypical running.  A bit of research now will repay dividends in the form of saving money, effort, and time that could have been put to better use building something you will get much more enjoyment out of. 
 

I know you want to get up and running, but patience, padawan, first find out as much as you can about the prototype and period you want to model, buy trackplan books*, go to shows or watch video of them to see what other people are doing to garner ideas.  Familiarise yourself with the concept of headshunts, flexitrack, fiddle yards, trailing crossovers, and run-around loops.  In the meantime, build a small ‘plank’ test layout with a runaround and a couple of sidings to prove your stock and have something to play trains on while you are getting to grips with the learning curve. 
 

 

*There are trackplan books and then there are trackplan books.  Don’t bother with the Hornby plans, few of which are realistic and which are primarily designed to sell you track.  The Cyril Freezer books mentioned are good, but written in the late 50s or the early 60s, and the post-Beeching railway looked a lot different, so while they are brilliant for ideas and inspiration, they are a bit dated.  One Freezer plan is highly relevant to you though, the famous and brilliant ‘Minories’, highly suitable for your left hand terminus!
 

[Dungrange]

4 hours ago, The Johnster said:

Tbh, it looks as if you’ve got a collection of setrack and have tried to devise a way of using all of it in a given space, with apparently no regard to prototype practice or operation.  

 

I agree, it looks a bit like some of the Brio layouts I created with the kids that were designed to make best use of the pieces that we had.  I really want a straight, but we have none left, so lets just use the last point or put in a couple of curves to make a reverse curve.  The kids at age four didn't mind as they knew noting about real railways, but I'm presuming that the OP isn't four years old.

[Dungrange]

12 hours ago, InterCity110 said:

What exactly are turnaround facilities, as I was going to have a loco come in from the TMD (middle sidings) and come in to pick the coaches up.

 

This gives some idea of how you think it will operate, but you really need to think through all the moves that you want to make during an operating session.  If using locomotive hauled stock, then the maximum train length is one coach - ie a locomotive and a single coach is all that will fit in your platforms.  That's not very West Coast Mainline: more decrepit branch line.  Now that the train has arrived, your locomotive is trapped at the buffers.  How does it get out?  Okay, you can leave it there and bring a new locomotive from your Traction Maintenance Depot (TMD), but that's only really possible at platforms 3 and 4 (assuming they are numbered from left to right) as it's a rather convoluted route to platforms 1 and 2.  Further, your platforms are so short that your two locomotives (one each end) and a single coach, doesn't fit in your platforms.  It will protrude beyond the signals on your platform, thus making them useless.

 

The TMD is fine (apart from your issue with track centres), if all you envisage is a single shed or sidings full of weeds, but there doesn't appear to be any facilities - fuelling, washing etc.  You therefore can't portray what goes on a TMD.

 

The goods yard has the same problem as the station.  How do you release the locomotive that has just arrived at the head of your train?  Is this another example of just bring another new locomotive from the TMD?  In reality, the inbound train would probably arrive in a loop, uncouple, draw forward through a trailing crossover and stop in the loco release.  The crossover would be thrown and the locomotive would then reverse along the parallel track to reach what was the end of the train.  It can then shunt the wagons in the train into the various sidings.  Even if you add a training crossover between a pair of sidings to allow a run-round, your shunting would involve back and forth onto what you are suggesting is your mainline, that will lead offstage.  In reality, such a facility would likely have a head shunt, to keep operations self-contained.

 

12 hours ago, InterCity110 said:

My layout will be both 1990s and 1970s southern WCML, the station is top left, the goods yard is top right and TMD is middle.

 

Okay, this says what you think you want, but the plan looks nothing like the West Coast Mainline.  What length are the trains that you want to operate?  You'll probably have to compromise on train lengths, but a locomotive with six 75' coaches will be about seven feet in length.  Your platforms therefore need to be at least this length, which probably means that you'll have to sacrifice either the TMD or the goods yard to fit in a suitably sized station.  Alternatively, accept that the space you have available isn't big enough to model the WCML and pick a different prototype.

 

Either way, I would expect the track plan as it stands to provide pleasure for days or weeks before you'll want to rip it up and start again.

[AY Mod]

As it stands it's impractical, unworkable, unprototypical and unappealing; it's not worth anyone spending any time tweaking anything.

 

Measure the space you have available and spend some time looking at track plans that others have built.

[Michael Hodgson]

I am sorry that you have had what must seem like overwhelmingly negative feedback on your plan.  But you've done the right thing by asking before you built it - it would be so more more depressing to spend a lot of time and effort only to find you have built a layout which is difficult to operate in any meaningful way.  So I'll try to make some more constructive suggestions on how to avoid the pitfalls

 

A few key design issues have emerged that you might think about for a new plan

• think about what train lengths you want
• plan both arrival and departure movements for your trains
• including if applicable run-round or release of locos when changing direction
• consider what degree of shunting you might (or might not!) want to do, bearing in mind coupling and uncoupling can be tedious
• any platforms need to be long enough to accommodate proposed trains (including locos, if loco-hauled)
• fiddle yard or sidings or goods loops should be of similar length to hold the trains when before going to/coming from the station
• that's a question balancing the length of any off-scene storage tracks or other stations the trains might run to
• remember also that vehicles have to stand sufficiently clear of points that they do not foul other movements which might have to take place using the other setting of the point - this tends to limit how much stock you can run round in a platform
• consider your proposed protoype  - WCML trains are very long, most people don't have the space, a non-stop roundy-roundy type layout is perhaps the best choice if that's what you really want, as you can model a section of lineside scenery without needing to build a very long station; alternatively if you want a terminus station, you might be better off choosing a branch line - that's why they are so commonly chosen by modellers!

I am sure others will be able to add more ideas to consider.

[Dungrange]

4 hours ago, AY Mod said:

Measure the space you have available and spend some time looking at track plans that others have built.

 

The problem with copying the track plans of others, is that you also copy the mistakes that others have made.  In may ways, it's better to start by looking at the prototype that you wish to portray.

 

The Trackmaps book for the Midlands and North West seems to cover the entire length of the West Coast Mainline, so may provide a better starting point if looking for something that is prototypical, workable and represents want you want to portray.

 

https://www.trackmaps.co.uk/railway-track-products/railway-track-diagrams/railway-track-diagrams-book-4-midlands-north-west/

[The Johnster]

Space is the enemy unless you’re Pete Waterman, and he uses Cathedral naves….  
 

Assuming you are working in 4mm/foot 00 gauge, mk3 or 4 coaches are 75’ long, about a foot, and a loco about 9”.  So a ten-coach WCML train with loco is about eleven feet long.  A full HST set comes out at about nine and a half feet, and a full length intermodal at about the thirty foot/10 metre mark.  It gets worse; as Mike Hodgson says, you need to have clear space at each end, so add a foot to those lengths.  
 

Reality hits hard when it hits, because all that the above accounts for is a train; there now has to be space for pointwork at the station ‘throat’ for it to arrive at or leave from it’s correct platform from or to the correct line.  Similarly, your goods yard needs room to shunt vehicles without the shunting movement coming out on to the main line; this os the WCML and another express is due in 5 minutes.  And then your off-scene storage has to be able to accommodate your longest trains. 
 

So you will have to compromise; we all do.  A layout representing the WCML in the sort of space your plan suggests is probably not possible, but clever use of space and choice of prototype can help.  Look at ‘Borchester’, a classic layout depicting a medium size mainline terminus with loco sidings, a goods yard, colliery branch, and main line junction put in the country in a fairly average sized room.  It featured ECML Pacifics with 6-coach trains and some quite tight curvature that modern scale modellers would frown at, but it worked and looked the part.  It is complex and needs six trained operators to manage a full timetable, though
 

Another one from the same era is Buckingham, where the Great Central was chosen as a prototype because it built short coaches, around 50’, so you could get more in to the available space and give the impression of longer trains.  
 

I mention these because they are proven successful layouts and feature a similar terminus to loop setup to what you are suggesting.  You’re getting a lot of negative feedback from us, myself included, but please, don’t be put off.  You will, I think, have to restart from scratch though, with more research and a clearer idea of what you want from the layout in terms of appearance, the types and size of trains, the choice of setrack or flexi, type of control, and operation.  Some people like to sit and watch the trains go by, and others like to shunt and recreate prototypical movements and workings.  
 

Having got some idea on those matters, you will then need to tailor your plans to bitter reality in the form of budget, available space, and the needs of those you live with.  Good news is that most of the trains and plenty of suitable buildings for a 70s or 90s WCML layout are available in RTR form, but only you can decide how it all fits together…

 

There are some very experienced and skilled modellers on this site, and highly knowledgeable working or retired railwaymen and railway historians, as well as the likes of me who have been knocking around for a while and learned some of the basics.  It’s harder than it looks, but I’ve found people here to be exceptionally willing to offer practical advice and knowledge.   We’ll get you up and running over time if you listen to us, don’t worry, 

[Jeremy Cumberland]

You mentioned non-scenic areas. Can you show the track in these as well? Getting the scenic area to look good relies on knowing how train move in and out of the scenic area.

[Michael Hodgson]

2 hours ago, Jeremy Cumberland said:

You mentioned non-scenic areas. Can you show the track in these as well? Getting the scenic area to look good relies on knowing how train move in and out of the scenic area.

Yes, a good point.  Good layout design includes good off-scene design, so it makes sense to include hidden areas when asking for comments on a plan - because the ability to operate depends on the ability of  any fiddle yard to hold the types of train you will want to store there, and the ease (or difficullty) of getting trains in and out, and if appropriate of turning them to come back.

Given that hidden storage is by definition non-prototypical, modellers resort to quite a lot of different options according to their needs.

These include simple storage loops, reverse loops, dead-end sidings, traversers, sector plates, and even train-length turntables.  Some poeple also use removable storage cartridges whereby a complete train can be lifted on/off the layout

[AY Mod]

20 hours ago, Dungrange said:

The problem with copying the track plans of others, is that you also copy the mistakes that others have made.

 

That would be a giant leap forward in this case. 😉

[Pete the Elaner]

10 hours ago, The Johnster said:

Space is the enemy unless you’re Pete Waterman, and he uses Cathedral naves….  
 

Assuming you are working in 4mm/foot 00 gauge, mk3 or 4 coaches are 75’ long, about a foot, and a loco about 9”.  So a ten-coach WCML train with loco is about eleven feet long.  A full HST set comes out at about nine and a half feet, and a full length intermodal at about the thirty foot/10 metre mark.  It gets worse; as Mike Hodgson says, you need to have clear space at each end, so add a foot to those lengths.  
 

Reality hits hard when it hits, because all that the above accounts for is a train; there now has to be space for pointwork at the station ‘throat’ for it to arrive at or leave from it’s correct platform from or to the correct line.  Similarly, your goods yard needs room to shunt vehicles without the shunting movement coming out on to the main line; this os the WCML and another express is due in 5 minutes.  And then your off-scene storage has to be able to accommodate your longest trains. 
 

So you will have to compromise; we all do.  A layout representing the WCML in the sort of space your plan suggests is probably not possible, but clever use of space and choice of prototype can help.  Look at ‘Borchester’, a classic layout depicting a medium size mainline terminus with loco sidings, a goods yard, colliery branch, and main line junction put in the country in a fairly average sized room.  It featured ECML Pacifics with 6-coach trains and some quite tight curvature that modern scale modellers would frown at, but it worked and looked the part.  It is complex and needs six trained operators to manage a full timetable, though
 

Another one from the same era is Buckingham, where the Great Central was chosen as a prototype because it built short coaches, around 50’, so you could get more in to the available space and give the impression of longer trains.  
 

I mention these because they are proven successful layouts and feature a similar terminus to loop setup to what you are suggesting.  You’re getting a lot of negative feedback from us, myself included, but please, don’t be put off.  You will, I think, have to restart from scratch though, with more research and a clearer idea of what you want from the layout in terms of appearance, the types and size of trains, the choice of setrack or flexi, type of control, and operation.  Some people like to sit and watch the trains go by, and others like to shunt and recreate prototypical movements and workings.  
 

Having got some idea on those matters, you will then need to tailor your plans to bitter reality in the form of budget, available space, and the needs of those you live with.  Good news is that most of the trains and plenty of suitable buildings for a 70s or 90s WCML layout are available in RTR form, but only you can decide how it all fits together…

 

There are some very experienced and skilled modellers on this site, and highly knowledgeable working or retired railwaymen and railway historians, as well as the likes of me who have been knocking around for a while and learned some of the basics.  It’s harder than it looks, but I’ve found people here to be exceptionally willing to offer practical advice and knowledge.   We’ll get you up and running over time if you listen to us, don’t worry, 

 

All very good points.

The only way I found to make it smaller without making it look compressed was to find somewhere inner-city in a cutting between tunnels or bridges. This eliminates a TMD or any sort of goods yard because they would have been built where there is a lot more space.

Urban locations also require a lot of buildings. Countryside is a lot easier. This may or may not appeal to you.

[roythebus1]

How much space do you actually have for your layout? What scale are you intending to use? Once we know, we may be able to offer useful suggestions.

[melmerby]

12 minutes ago, roythebus1 said:

How much space do you actually have for your layout? What scale are you intending to use? Once we know, we may be able to offer useful suggestions.

The track pieces shown are Hornby 00 track of known size.

Edited August 29, 2023 by melmerby

[roythebus1]

42 minutes ago, melmerby said:

The track pieces shown are Hornby 00 track of known size.

Hmmm, not very well thought out then!

[AY Mod]

Wait until we start dishing out standard advice to provide a a feed to every piece of track.

[5BarVT]

18 hours ago, The Johnster said:

Space is the enemy unless you’re Pete Waterman, and he uses Cathedral naves….  

Actually the south transept for the two I’ve seen.

But point well made though.

Paul.

[RobinofLoxley]

The actual space requirement for what was originally drafted, plus the loop section mentioned, is approx 2.6M by 1.6M. Ignoring any issues of layout planning and concept for the moment, does the OP realise this size is already too much for a single baseboard, and unless there is access to all four sides, there will be areas that will be very hard to reach. The loop would have to be completed using three curved turnouts each side if the four roads each side are to be utilised. 

 

After that I would add that WCML stock wont get round it except for the odd 2-car dmu.

 

There are a number of first radius track elements included in the plan that cant be used. 

 

So if this is the size available, the question is what would fit on it. The width dimension of 1.6M is tricky because it really needs an access area/operating well in the middle. Below is a layout suggestion that illustrates what is possible, call it size and style only. Its from another thread, and it may even have been a steam era thing. Gives about 800mm platform length, could be longer.

 

[DCB]

9 hours ago, melmerby said:

The track pieces shown are Hornby 00 track of known size.

You either have exceptional  eyesight or a very large screen.

 

6 hours ago, RobinofLoxley said:

The actual space requirement for what was originally drafted, plus the loop section mentioned, is approx 2.6M by 1.6M. Ignoring any issues of layout planning and

 What is that in proper GWR era measurements   8ft 8" X 5ft 4" (?)    WCML (?)   00?    C J Freezer did some good 8 X 4 plans  and as long as a class 87 or a Duchess and 5 x 60ft coaches is your idea of a WCML train then they may suit.
Otherwise maybe look at something more modest,  Abertwysted or somewhere equally unlikely on the Cambrian or maybe like my BLT "Ugleigh"  famous for the annual "Ugleigh Carnival" and the "Ugleigh Carnival Queen"  which planned as a U shape would fit the space.

[njee20]

8 hours ago, DCB said:

You either have exceptional  eyesight or a very large screen.

 

 

The part numbers are clearly printed on the plan, not sure any exceptional traits are needed!