Building a layout on a 2m x 0.75m board, not sure about scale or layout design

[scottystitch]

And again for context purposes only, the same double oval with a basic terminus arrangement and the same Kato 880 units represented:

 

 

I've used code 55 medium turnouts and a code 55 double slip, although obviously having the double sip and the crossover at the "station mouth" is superfluous - this just to give an idea of space available (or not available).

 

Best

Scott.

[scottystitch]

I know you've mentioned the ECML, but I don't think you will realistically get much of what you've asked for in the space available, regardless of scale.

 

As an alternative, this is Lymebrook Yard.  Take a look, it might give some inspiration and tick more boxes than your current thinking is.  The layout is built on a space 4ft by 2ft.  Ignore the height of teh scenery for now and just see all that has been incorporated in the track plan.  You're board length is a bit bigger than this, so the space for the yard would open out even better.  Try not to fall into the trap of having too much track on the board.  I'm not generally a fan of small, minimum space layouts in any scale, but what's been achieved here is excellent and very clever:

 

 

https://www.macclesfieldmrg.org.uk/exhibition/exhibitors/lymebrook-yard/

 

 

 

Best

 

Scott.

Edited September 21, 2023 by scottystitch

[AY Mod]

47 minutes ago, RobinofLoxley said:

@AY Mod can we move this to layout and track design pretty please?

 

Done.

[Jademalo]

  

49 minutes ago, RobinofLoxley said:

You are absolutely right about code 80 and 55; but they can be mixed, and this is especially important regarding slips which are only available, strangely, in code 55 and are absoluely essential for space saving. While the 2M dimension isn't especially restricted in N (would be 4M translated to OO which is quite a decent room size) the 0.79M dimension is. Its important for drafting track plans as its a waste of time to draw things in a different code that cant then be reproduced in the chosen one because the turnout angles arent the same, for example.

 

Oh, I wasn't aware they could be mixed, I thought you had to stick to one or the other.

Are either of them particularly recommended over the other? I'm not bothered about which one I go for since ultimately I'm starting from scratch when it comes to N.

 

48 minutes ago, Flying Pig said:

 

Some hints

• you don't need to use every track piece in the inventory;
• be careful with diamonds that give limited access to a route or siding
• beware leaving yourself unusably short sidings or (particularly) headshunts

And you don't actually need terminal platforms to terminate trains.  I would be looking at a through station on one side of the layout with a middle road accessible from both directions which I would lay out with three platform faces (one ordinary and one island platform).  On the other side, a goods loop and sidings.  This will allow up to four trains with two runing at any one time and should be doable in N on a door.  If you go for TT you may need to simplify.

 

Thanks for the hints!

• Haha, I know I don't have to, the second iteration will be a lot more streamlined. A lot of that was just me trying to get things right in a broader sense, so I was a bit haphazard with choice.
• I've realised that I'm missing a set of points to that right hand siding, whoops. I was attempting to copy the rightmost platform in the picture of Newcastle Central Station that I posted earlier, which has a slip to a middle track siding thing that I really like.
• Noted, the length and general shape of a lot of the internal stuff is very rough. The whole thing can be moved to the right and extended without much effort, so I'm not too worried about that.

The reason for the terminal platforms on the left hand side is length, and wanting at least one running loop that doesn't hurtle past the platform every go around. Trying to join those again at the top ultimately means I need a tighter radius right the way round, and less space can actually be used as reasonable platform. In my head the platforms are roughly something like this;

 

Again the actual shape and profiling of the track will be a lot better when I've got a bit more time

49 minutes ago, RobinofLoxley said:

You are absolutely right about code 80 and 55; but they can be mixed, and this is especially important regarding slips which are only available, strangely, in code 55 and are absoluely essential for space saving. While the 2M dimension isn't especially restricted in N (would be 4M translated to OO which is quite a decent room size) the 0.79M dimension is. Its important for drafting track plans as its a waste of time to draw things in a different code that cant then be reproduced in the chosen one because the turnout angles arent the same, for example.

 

Oh, I wasn't aware they could be mixed, I thought you had to stick to one or the other.

Are either of them particularly recommended over the other? I'm not bothered about which one I go for since ultimately I'm starting from scratch when it comes to N.

 

48 minutes ago, Flying Pig said:

 

Some hints

• you don't need to use every track piece in the inventory;
• be careful with diamonds that give limited access to a route or siding
• beware leaving yourself unusably short sidings or (particularly) headshunts

And you don't actually need terminal platforms to terminate trains.  I would be looking at a through station on one side of the layout with a middle road accessible from both directions which I would lay out with three platform faces (one ordinary and one island platform).  On the other side, a goods loop and sidings.  This will allow up to four trains with two runing at any one time and should be doable in N on a door.  If you go for TT you may need to simplify.

 

Thanks for the hints!

•  Haha, I know I don't have to, the second iteration will be a lot more streamlined. A lot of that was just me trying to get things right in a broader sense, so I was a bit haphazard with choice.
• I've realised that I'm missing a set of points to that right hand siding, whoops. I was attempting to copy the rightmost platform in the picture of Newcastle Central Station that I posted earlier, which has a slip to a middle track siding thing that I really like.
• Noted, the length and general shape of a lot of the internal stuff is very rough. The whole thing can be moved to the right and extended without much effort, so I'm not too worried about that.

The reason for the terminal platforms on the left hand side is length, and wanting at least one running loop that doesn't hurtle past the platform every go around. Trying to join those again at the top ultimately means I need a tighter radius right the way round, and less space can actually be used as reasonable platform. In my head the platforms are roughly something like this;

 

Again the actual shape and profiling of the track will be a lot better when I've got a bit more time.

I'm thinking the curved outer platforms being for longer trains mostly so I can make more efficient use of the corner, rather than having a big long station in the middle of the loop. The outermost platform is ~900mm in length, so should be enough to hold something like a Kato Class 800. In my head the outer loop is the third platform, with the inner loop being purely for running. The inner platform is very much trying to capture the vibe of the old platforms at Newcastle, with space for smaller things like pacers.

 

Hopefully that gives a rough idea of where my head is currently at, even if my anyrail skills are currently lacking. This obviously isn't considering the entire right hand side of the layout, either.

 

 

Edited September 21, 2023 by Jademalo

[RobinofLoxley]

Here are a few pointers I hope! When planning a layout you need to think about what stock movements are intended and what are possible. Very specifically, when you have a terminus station on the side of a loop, the only way trains can get back to the station is by reversing back, and the same applies to trains running  towards  the station access - they can only go clockwise (as you have drawn it) by reversing or leaving a siding that faces the required way. The reversing moves look ugly.

 

The alternative is a reversing loop that creates the required movement. You need a certain amount of space to fit one in (after taking a chunk out for the station in the first place. This is where the slips come in, as they permit a crossing move and a turnout move in the same space. I used code 55 items as they are more compact, with the comparison code 80's outside the layout at the bottom. They are a few cm longer, which add up around the plan. The reversing section is 108cm, the most it can be on this plan style, an island platform would fit there but the extra turnouts then restrict the train length that can be used without fouling the turnouts while stopped.

 

I should add, having forgotten it, that the two sidings to the right form the alternative solution to the one-way only problem if used as a Terminus.

Edited September 21, 2023 by RobinofLoxley
additional material

[njee20]

Whilst code 80 and code 55 can be joined, they are not quite the same, code 55 actually have a very slightly deeper rail section (0.083"), giving a tiny step at the railhead. You also need to shim the code 55 to get the level the same. I'd commit to one or the other, and would strongly recommend code 55. It looks far better, there's more options for crossings and turnouts, and it's stronger. Plus all turnouts use the same crossing angle, so you can form a crossover between (for example) a short and long turnout, which doens't work in code 80.

 

I think to a degree you need to build what you want to do. You're not going to accomplish a realistic representation of Newcastle in such a small space, but as long as you think it'll be fun to operate then crack on.

 

For your platforms consider that the 800 has very long coaches, and platforms will need to be further from the track on curves, the sharper the curve the larger the gap, your small people may end up with a very large jump to the platform!

[RobinofLoxley]

1 hour ago, njee20 said:

Whilst code 80 and code 55 can be joined, they are not quite the same, code 55 actually have a very slightly deeper rail section (0.083"), giving a tiny step at the railhead. You also need to shim the code 55 to get the level the same. I'd commit to one or the other, and would strongly recommend code 55. It looks far better, there's more options for crossings and turnouts, and it's stronger. Plus all turnouts use the same crossing angle, so you can form a crossover between (for example) a short and long turnout, which doens't work in code 80.

 

I think to a degree you need to build what you want to do. You're not going to accomplish a realistic representation of Newcastle in such a small space, but as long as you think it'll be fun to operate then crack on.

 

For your platforms consider that the 800 has very long coaches, and platforms will need to be further from the track on curves, the sharper the curve the larger the gap, your small people may end up with a very large jump to the platform!

I know thats not directed at my post, but just for clarity, I used a mixture of bits especially setrack curves, to speed up making the drawing. Agree 100% with all the comments.

[cypherman]

21 hours ago, Jademalo said:

 

Oh wow, that's absolutely gorgeous. Oh how I wish I had the space for something like that, lol.

That's a fair thought, but as I said above it's just not the era that gets me going.

 

 

Oh wow, that layout is absolutely gorgeous. It really uses elevation well though, which I unfortunately don't have the luxury of.

Good to know the secondary market is solid, I'm not averse to buying so long as I know I'm not just throwing away money. I hate whenever I have to get something that I know will immediately lose a lot of value, but it's why I tend to spend more on good stuff I can sell rather than buying cheaper stuff I can't.

 

 

Oh wow, these ideas are absolutely fantastic, thank you so much! I genuinely really appreciate it.

I particularly like 2 and 6, I'm going to have a play with something along those lines and see if I can get something ideal. Unfortunately my door probably isn't deep enough for a turntable, as much fun as that would be. These have definitely given me a load of great ideas though!

 

The original reason the diamond crossing was there was for a double loop, but I couldn't quite get something I liked with it. I had the idea of being able to run it either as two opposing loops or a figure 8, depending on how I was feeling, with some sort of feature at the top.

 

Do you have any particular recommendations or ideas in terms of where to put platforms and how wide to space things? I'm actually wondering if it could work to sort of mirror the internal section of 8, and run the diagonals as platforms in addition to the ones outside of the loop. It's actually reminding me a bit of Newcastle in the 80s and earlier looking west, with some straight terminus platforms where the car park is now and the curved through platforms next to them.

 

 

Obviously I want to be careful to not make it too busy, but I feel like there's the seed of an idea here!

 

 

Hi Jade.

The two layouts you liked 2 and 6 would have the platforms on the left hand side2 lines with an island platform between the 2 tracks and in the middle of the layout the platforms would be on both sides of the middle 2 tracks. Thus giving you a possible 3 platforms or 2 platforms and parcels platform. the other 2 sidings could be used for goods. All the layouts use Hornby 4th radius  curves. So it should be able to run any of the newer Hornby/Bachmann engines. You do not say what era you want to run. Steam or diesel. All these layouts would work well with modern image. For steam I would be tempted to put points in the 2 main platform lines to allow running round. This would mean moving the island platform on the left to the outside of the tracks.  Sorry I could not do this as I am using the free version of Anyrail and am limited to 50 pieces. All the layouts are 50 pieces. 

On the layout you showed there are several major problems with it. once you get on to the inside line you cannot get into the inside station line without reversing your train. You also have a diamond crossing in the station throat that leads to just one line. Giving it very limited use. If you replaced that with a double slip you would be able to get rid of both the points and the diamond crossing simplifying the area and making it much more usable. But as has been mentioned the platforms would be rather small. I have revamped your idea a little bit to make it more user friendly so to speak by swapping the direction of entry and using a double slip to replace the 2 points and diamond crossing. I also added an extra set of points to allow movement between lines a little easier. The left hand side tracks will still have either an island platform or if you want a run round platform on the usual places. I have also included 2 more simplified versions that does all the same movements but includes a passing loop where a train can be held whilst other movements are done. One has the double slip and the other uses 2 points.

I personally think that it might be better to move the back scene forwards and have  perhaps a 4 lane fiddleyard  set up behind it. 2 tracks per line. so you can store a limited number of trains out of sight. I must admit though to my mind having a double track mainline in the space you have may end up making it look more like a toy trainset rather than model railway. The idea of moving the back scene forwards though can be done with any of the layouts I have shown. So you could theoretically have a single line working with a 3 or 4 track fiddle yard behind it.

 

 

Edited September 22, 2023 by cypherman

[Jademalo]

9 hours ago, RobinofLoxley said:

Here are a few pointers I hope! When planning a layout you need to think about what stock movements are intended and what are possible. Very specifically, when you have a terminus station on the side of a loop, the only way trains can get back to the station is by reversing back, and the same applies to trains running  towards  the station access - they can only go clockwise (as you have drawn it) by reversing or leaving a siding that faces the required way. The reversing moves look ugly.

 

The alternative is a reversing loop that creates the required movement. You need a certain amount of space to fit one in (after taking a chunk out for the station in the first place. This is where the slips come in, as they permit a crossing move and a turnout move in the same space. I used code 55 items as they are more compact, with the comparison code 80's outside the layout at the bottom. They are a few cm longer, which add up around the plan. The reversing section is 108cm, the most it can be on this plan style, an island platform would fit there but the extra turnouts then restrict the train length that can be used without fouling the turnouts while stopped.

 

I should add, having forgotten it, that the two sidings to the right form the alternative solution to the one-way only problem if used as a Terminus.

 

Thank you! This is interesting - one of my super early ideas when I was testing TT was that exact sort of figure 8 reversing loop. I had envisioned the station complex across the middle of the layout like this, with the running loop around the outside. I ended up binning the idea because I couldn't figure out how to make it work electrically, since from what I could tell it was too short to reliably detect and switch. It also had issues with reversing, since the platforms could still only be accessed in one direction around the loop.

After looking at this for a bit though I think this might actually work, so long as the outer terminus platforms are only ever directly connected to a single loop at a time. It's tricky to conceptualise though, especially when slips get involved. I like it though, especially within my want of "More interesting than a simple oval".

 

In terms of platforms, My current thinking is to have a set of express platforms and a shorter set of regional platforms, in some manner. Those wouldn't need to be particularly long, I'm thinking sort of Pacer length. It's a shame the reversing loop can't cut across on the opposite diagonal, that would give a perfect place for those.

One possibility could be to have the regional platforms on the right there, with access to the yard via those by crossing the reversing loop. I'm not sure how good that would look though.

 

8 hours ago, njee20 said:

Whilst code 80 and code 55 can be joined, they are not quite the same, code 55 actually have a very slightly deeper rail section (0.083"), giving a tiny step at the railhead. You also need to shim the code 55 to get the level the same. I'd commit to one or the other, and would strongly recommend code 55. It looks far better, there's more options for crossings and turnouts, and it's stronger. Plus all turnouts use the same crossing angle, so you can form a crossover between (for example) a short and long turnout, which doens't work in code 80.

 

I think to a degree you need to build what you want to do. You're not going to accomplish a realistic representation of Newcastle in such a small space, but as long as you think it'll be fun to operate then crack on.

 

For your platforms consider that the 800 has very long coaches, and platforms will need to be further from the track on curves, the sharper the curve the larger the gap, your small people may end up with a very large jump to the platform!

 

Thanks for the recommendation, I'm definitely leaning towards code 55. It's not too much more expensive at the total length I'm looking at, and the crossing and turnout options definitely let me do more in the space I have available.

 

Yeah, I appreciate that a 1:1 scale copy isn't exactly feasible, it's mostly just an example of the vibe that I'm going for as opposed to something like Kings Cross. One day I'll buy all of peco's crossing stock and recreate the full might of the diamonds as they were in the 60s, when I end up making a fortune in music and have access to a cathedral like Pete Waterman, lol.

 

Oh, that's a good point! I won't lie in saying I totally hadn't considered that at all. Hopefully they've been practicing their parkour!

 

1 hour ago, cypherman said:

Hi Jade.

The two layouts you liked 2 and 6 would have the platforms on the left hand side2 lines with an island platform between the 2 tracks and in the middle of the layout the platforms would be on both sides of the middle 2 tracks. Thus giving you a possible 3 platforms or 2 platforms and parcels platform. the other 2 sidings could be used for goods. All the layouts use Hornby 4th radius  curves. So it should be able to run any of the newer Hornby/Bachmann engines. You do not say what era you want to run. Steam or diesel. All these layouts would work well with modern image. For steam I would be tempted to put points in the 2 main platform lines to allow running round. This would mean moving the island platform on the left to the outside of the tracks.  Sorry I could not do this as I am using the free version of Anyrail and am limited to 50 pieces. All the layouts are 50 pieces. 

On the layout you showed there are several major problems with it. once you get on to the inside line you cannot get into the inside station line without reversing your train. You also have a diamond crossing in the station throat that leads to just one line. Giving it very limited use. If you replaced that with a double slip you would be able to get rid of both the points and the diamond crossing simplifying the area and making it much more usable. But as has been mentioned the platforms would be rather small. I have revamped your idea a little bit to make it more user friendly so to speak by swapping the direction of entry and using a double slip to replace the 2 points and diamond crossing. I also added an extra set of points to allow movement between lines a little easier. The left hand side tracks will still have either an island platform or if you want a run round platform on the usual places. I have also included a more simplified version that does all the same movements but includes a passing loop where a train can be held whilst other movements are done.

I personally think that it might be better to move the back scene forwards and have  perhaps a 4 lane fiddleyard  set up behind it. 2 tracks per line. so you can store a limited number of trains out of sight. I must admit though to my mind having a double track mainline in the space you have may end up making it look more like a toy trainset rather than model railway. The idea of moving the back scene forwards though can be done with any of the layouts I have shown. So you could theoretically have a single line working with a 3 or 4 track fiddle yard behind it.

 

 

 

Thank you for these suggestions! I really appreciate it, and the things you bring up are the exact sort of feedback I've been looking for.

I'm not sure what scale you're thinking however, there's no way I can fit 4th radius curves by Hornby in the limited width I have. At this point I'm leaning heavily towards N, so Hornby is entirely out of the question.

 

The answer to Steam Or Diesel is both, as annoying as that is. My goal was always to try and make something more interesting than a TrakMat that I can run trains that I like on, and at the end of the day I like both modern era MUs and classic steam. The modern era of heritage steam does at least mean running them on slightly more modern feeling layouts doesn't feel too anachronistic, at the very least.

 

With regards to moving the back scene, since I'm limited on height for the sake of storage there's no real way to separate them. Having the back lines diverge as in my example was an attempt to break up that toy train set oval look more than anything else, while still having the double track to be able to run more than one train.

[cypherman]

9 hours ago, Jademalo said:

 

Thank you! This is interesting - one of my super early ideas when I was testing TT was that exact sort of figure 8 reversing loop. I had envisioned the station complex across the middle of the layout like this, with the running loop around the outside. I ended up binning the idea because I couldn't figure out how to make it work electrically, since from what I could tell it was too short to reliably detect and switch. It also had issues with reversing, since the platforms could still only be accessed in one direction around the loop.

After looking at this for a bit though I think this might actually work, so long as the outer terminus platforms are only ever directly connected to a single loop at a time. It's tricky to conceptualise though, especially when slips get involved. I like it though, especially within my want of "More interesting than a simple oval".

 

In terms of platforms, My current thinking is to have a set of express platforms and a shorter set of regional platforms, in some manner. Those wouldn't need to be particularly long, I'm thinking sort of Pacer length. It's a shame the reversing loop can't cut across on the opposite diagonal, that would give a perfect place for those.

One possibility could be to have the regional platforms on the right there, with access to the yard via those by crossing the reversing loop. I'm not sure how good that would look though.

 

 

Thanks for the recommendation, I'm definitely leaning towards code 55. It's not too much more expensive at the total length I'm looking at, and the crossing and turnout options definitely let me do more in the space I have available.

 

Yeah, I appreciate that a 1:1 scale copy isn't exactly feasible, it's mostly just an example of the vibe that I'm going for as opposed to something like Kings Cross. One day I'll buy all of peco's crossing stock and recreate the full might of the diamonds as they were in the 60s, when I end up making a fortune in music and have access to a cathedral like Pete Waterman, lol.

 

Oh, that's a good point! I won't lie in saying I totally hadn't considered that at all. Hopefully they've been practicing their parkour!

 

 

Thank you for these suggestions! I really appreciate it, and the things you bring up are the exact sort of feedback I've been looking for.

I'm not sure what scale you're thinking however, there's no way I can fit 4th radius curves by Hornby in the limited width I have. At this point I'm leaning heavily towards N, so Hornby is entirely out of the question.

 

The answer to Steam Or Diesel is both, as annoying as that is. My goal was always to try and make something more interesting than a TrakMat that I can run trains that I like on, and at the end of the day I like both modern era MUs and classic steam. The modern era of heritage steam does at least mean running them on slightly more modern feeling layouts doesn't feel too anachronistic, at the very least.

 

With regards to moving the back scene, since I'm limited on height for the sake of storage there's no real way to separate them. Having the back lines diverge as in my example was an attempt to break up that toy train set oval look more than anything else, while still having the double track to be able to run more than one train.

Hi Jade,

The layouts I have shown are to show you some ideas. To get the best out of the for the size you have TT or N would be the best scale to go for.

[RobinofLoxley]

I've made up a v2 showing some ways to develop the original concept, although more track isnt always better. Once a diagonal/loop is in place other features have to follow to fit in physically and operationally. There's no need for a headshunt, apart from the difficulty of fitting it in, when the stock is bidirectional; of course there are quite a few TMD's accessed via headshunts out there, it doesnt suit this plan thats all.

 

I think that 3-4 coach DMU/EMU or equivalent train length is about right. 

 

It was possible to fit an island platform bottom right, I'm not sure I like it personally but even if there wasnt a platform I would round the curves there to get away from a train set shape. The sidings top left could be goods but are intended to be a TMD which is why the access is from a trailing turnout with stock reversing into it.

 

Generally on design, everything is code 55 except for the 45 degree curves that come from setrack. In my experience which is entirely in OO, if you need sharp curves its easier to use preformed ones, rather than try to bend flexible track, where possible, making only gentle curves with flexitrack. The setrack curves are designed for a slightly wider gauge (track separation) than code 55 but they can still be used, although the positions wont correspond exactly as they appear in flextrack layouts. They work really well at the station approach, giving a very easy construction. Some curves have to made with flexi as they arent multiples of 11.25 dgrees.

 

Electrically, the original plan works in either DC or DCC. The length of the reversing loop section isnt a determining factor for the operational principle, which is that the track section is isolated at each end, both rails, with insulating fishplates, then polarity is switched manually (DC) or by an autoreverser (DCC). I have two autoreversing modules (different suppliers) on my own layout and they have never given any trouble.

 

Personally, I would recommend going straight into DCC using a white z21 (the baby model with less features). Run it from a phone screen or pad, which should be easy to do as the whole plan will be in front of you.

 

 

[scottystitch]

Is it an option to put the right hand station on the straight section of the return loop? (red circle)

 

OR shift the junction in purple to the right and place the station on the straight to the left of it.

 

It would remove the problem of a big gap between train and platform due to the sharp curve.

 

Best

 

Scott.

 

  

Edited September 22, 2023 by scottystitch

[Bittern]

Given your space constraints, have you considered doing  something based on one of the ECML branches, where shorter trains (e.g. half-length 80xs)  are to be expected and some branches aren't electrified?

 

The line between Selby and Hull is ideal for your scenic requirements 😁 and can justify almost any non-electric ECML stock. The most operational interest is at Selby with the bay platform, junction (which could be offstage, or cropped just beyond the eastern vertex so the tracks remain parallel), and Cemex plant, though you couldn't do the real Selby's scenery justice because of the river and houses so you'd need a pretext to move that interest further down the line.

 

The Durham Coast and Tees Valley lines also have some possibly useful inspiration, especially around Hartlepool, but there's several stations that do a lot with relatively small footprints, and it has been used as a diversionary route for the ECML. It's not as flat though. If you don't mind removing the building Stockton station might make a good basis for a terminus/through station, and while it has a family resemblance to Darlington and Hull it's a lot smaller.

 

A radically different ECML option to consider would be something based around a facility like Highdyke Sidings, which in steam days was the exchange sidings for an iron ore branch but after closure in 1973 there was a preservation attempt: it failed, but they had some particularly important items. For the modern era, it could represent a platform-less terminus for the preserved line. For added interest you could keep one of the former British Steel facilities open (shades of the GCR(N)) and have their locos bring wagons to part of  the exchange sidings, while the rest of the yard is used for stock storage (strengthening coaches, kitchen cars, etc.).

[Jademalo]

  

6 minutes ago, RobinofLoxley said:

I've made up a v2 showing some ways to develop the original concept, although more track isnt always better. Once a diagonal/loop is in place other features have to follow to fit in physically and operationally. There's no need for a headshunt, apart from the difficulty of fitting it in, when the stock is bidirectional; of course there are quite a few TMD's accessed via headshunts out there, it doesnt suit this plan thats all.

 

I think that 3-4 coach DMU/EMU or equivalent train length is about right. 

 

It was possible to fit an island platform bottom right, I'm not sure I like it personally but even if there wasnt a platform I would round the curves there to get away from a train set shape. The sidings top left could be goods but are intended to be a TMD which is why the access is from a trailing turnout with stock reversing into it.

 

Generally on design, everything is code 55 except for the 45 degree curves that come from setrack. In my experience which is entirely in OO, if you need sharp curves its easier to use preformed ones, rather than try to bend flexible track, where possible, making only gentle curves with flexitrack. The setrack curves are designed for a slightly wider gauge (track separation) than code 55 but they can still be used, although the positions wont correspond exactly as they appear in flextrack layouts. They work really well at the station approach, giving a very easy construction. Some curves have to made with flexi as they arent multiples of 11.25 dgrees.

 

Electrically, the original plan works in either DC or DCC. The length of the reversing loop section isnt a determining factor for the operational principle, which is that the track section is isolated at each end, both rails, with insulating fishplates, then polarity is switched manually (DC) or by an autoreverser (DCC). I have two autoreversing modules (different suppliers) on my own layout and they have never given any trouble.

 

Personally, I would recommend going straight into DCC using a white z21 (the baby model with less features). Run it from a phone screen or pad, which should be easy to do as the whole plan will be in front of you.

 

 

 

Ooohhh, I'm really liking this!

 

My worry with the reverse loop switch is if the train is slightly too long for the middle line and ends up essentially touching both loops either side of the isolated section. I think it should be fine, but it would need minimum 900mm of length between the blocks to prevent anything from going wrong.

 

I like the idea of the platform on the right hand curve to break up the circle, my only reservation is it puts a run through platform on the high speed line, so to speak, which was the original intention of putting the big platforms on the left.

I also worry that the amount of TMD sidings might be a bit overkill, but I'm not sure. I highly doubt I'm going to be doing a load of shunting and yard stuff though, so that sort of thing makes sense. My only thought with regards to having the TMDs be on the right "hand" so to speak is by having them cross the reverse loop, but I'm not sure if the geometry for that would work. I'm still in the mindset that it's probably better to have one of the internal sections be a small station rather than just a TMD, with the TMD consisting of some short and some long sidings (with a headshunt? I don't know).

 

Is there any way for you to send me the anyrail file so I can have a play around with it too? I really like the bulk of what you've come up with, it's much better than my mess lol.

 

36 minutes ago, scottystitch said:

Is it an option to put the right hand station on the straight section of the return loop?

 

It would remove the problem of a big gap between train and platform due to the sharp curve.

 

Best

 

Scott.

 

  

 

I was considering this actually, it makes a lot of operational sense as a mid stop too. Depart platform 1, run around the outside loop anti-clockwise a few times, go through the inner section stopping there, run around the inner loop  a few times, then arrive back at platform 2. I'm not sure what the best layout for that sort of a station would be though, with the space available due to the narrowing points and the available length it's probably better to have two platforms either side rather than an island.

 

42 minutes ago, Bittern said:

The most operational interest is at Selby with the bay platform

 

Oooh, I quite like that as inspiration!

[RobinofLoxley]

@jademalo I'm not sure if its possible to mail a file through the site, I think it has be done via external email. I'm OK with that.

 

Can anyone confirm please? (looks to be the case as the email format here is the same as a posting, and you cant lift any material out of those)

 

(Will be tomorrow anyway, most likely)

Edited September 22, 2023 by RobinofLoxley

[AndrueC]

On 18/09/2023 at 23:46, njee20 said:

N is decades old, it’s not going anywhere. it’s say it’s a less ‘risky’ proposition than TT right now. 
 

The problem with N (relevant to all scales, but seems particularly acute in N) is the batch production nature. So yes, HSTs are plentiful at the moment because Dapol have released blue/grey and swallow, but give it 2 months, or try and get GNER or VTEC and it’s second hand only, often for inflated prices.

 

There’s a Zimo sound decoder for the Kato 800, but yes it’s a proprietary fitting as Kato eschew most standards. 

There should also be a Dapol GWR (with buffers) HST any week now. I had one on pre-order but cancelled it when I finally found a red/white wave EMR coach for my existing HST.

 

 

 

But I've been waiting over a year to find that missing coach. It doesn't help that it's not the easiest thing to search for. I found several blue/white EMR coaches but not red/white. I only found it while at TINGS manning my club's stand.

 

But it shows one big advantage of N scale. I can have a long rake like that running on an indoor layout in a fairly modern house :)

Edited September 22, 2023 by AndrueC

[Chimer]

2 hours ago, RobinofLoxley said:

@jademalo I'm not sure if its possible to mail a file through the site, I think it has be done via external email. I'm OK with that.

 

Can anyone confirm please? (looks to be the case as the email format here is the same as a posting, and you cant lift any material out of those)

 

(Will be tomorrow anyway, most likely)

 

You're right @RobinofLoxley, can only be done as an attachment to an email.  

 

Edited September 22, 2023 by Chimer

[RobinofLoxley]

4 hours ago, scottystitch said:

Is it an option to put the right hand station on the straight section of the return loop? (red circle)

 

OR shift the junction in purple to the right and place the station on the straight to the left of it.

 

It would remove the problem of a big gap between train and platform due to the sharp curve.

 

Best

 

Scott.

 

  

Both are possible. I'm sure the curvature of that platform can be decreased with some work. It would be better to have the stations separated as far as possible as there cant be significant scenery breaks on the layout.