Brand new to Railway modelling, Bachman? DCC Digitrax DCS52 Zephyr Express and more?

[RobinofLoxley]

Checking on Anyrail I would say that the length of the spacing straight required between two streamline turnouts is 8cm. I checked it for SLE91/2 not for any other size. That brings the track separation to Setrack standard.

 

Where you have put in a spacer between turnouts 5 and 6, OK, a bit small for me but you are cramped for space! However just checking that leaving the same spacer out between 4 and 3 etc was intentional, because it will lead to the curved sections slowly diverging rather than being parallel. You can see on your last post, while it isnt obvious, that the track joins dont line up as they should as explained by @Dungrange between turnouts 5/6 and 3/4, same both sides.

 

Also, those platforms - 10 cm only and 5cm. FWIW I have a plan with 2 tracks separated with a 15 cm wide island platform based on your footprint and it doesnt fit - a work in progress.

[Cliff M]

I take your point, Robin so I have put in the spacers ( I can only fit 41mm) between points 3 and 2, and as you can see it pushes the layout outside the board by 1.5 in. I will remeasure the width I can use as I should be able to find another 3 in. It will make things very tight but that's preferable to having too tight a curve.

I am not sure what I can do with the station platforms as I have already increased the height of the board by 3 in. After measuring they are 5 in and 3 in which I thought is ok according to Dungrange in an earlier post.

 

[RobinofLoxley]

12 hours ago, Cliff M said:

I take your point, Robin so I have put in the spacers ( I can only fit 41mm) between points 3 and 2, and as you can see it pushes the layout outside the board by 1.5 in. I will remeasure the width I can use as I should be able to find another 3 in. It will make things very tight but that's preferable to having too tight a curve.

I am not sure what I can do with the station platforms as I have already increased the height of the board by 3 in. After measuring they are 5 in and 3 in which I thought is ok according to Dungrange in an earlier post.

 

Ok. I used the scales on one of your earlier efforts to judge that, but the layout is evolving rather fast. Probably explains also why an outline plan I've drawn didnt fit as well.

[Cliff M]

I have found another 4 in on the width so everything now fits.

The station area is 150 mm from the edge of the board to the edge of the track. The Peco Wills station country building for example is 121 mm in width plus then a platform of around 28 mm less a few mm set back from the edge of the track. I could even cut out the back wall of the station as it's going to be up against the wall of the garage permanently so it will all fit better if needed.

Do you have any further thoughts?

How about you Harlequin,  Dungrange, ITG, and anyone else before I go out and buy the timber for the board? 

I would appreciate your final comments as you have all been so helpful.

 

Thanks in advance.   Cliff

 

[ITG]

Final thoughts as requested……..

Its much better than the earlier versions.

Personally, I’m not sure why have the two run round loops in the central sidings area; I’d be inclined to have a single loop, and then repurpose the other two tracks as dead end sidings.

For me, as said previously, I find the section of turnouts and crossings at the bottom to be over complicated, in access to and transition through to the innermost road.

But, hey, it’s your railway so at the end of the day, it’s personal preference.

Good luck

Ian

[RobinofLoxley]

I have been incubating a proposal but never posted as the original was evolving so fast, but just to provide a bit of contrast and show some alternatives, here goes. I'm also alarmed that the baseboard which is a hell of a risk is creeping larger and heavier all the time to deal with structural troubles in the original proposal. I have kept to the original dimensions - usually you have to make a plan fit the available space, its a bit unusual to change the space to fit the layout, tbh.

 

So I have a different approach to having a goods yard, closer to reality, depending a bit on the time of the location. The goods yard shunts both ways, so a loco is never trapped by dead ends. Access is from either line, through the single slip, so @Cliff M you will note that the width of the layout is now adjustable as the turnout sequence is not the full width. Access from the clockwise outer loop is by reversing through the turnout and over the slip.

 

Ive also offered an alternative by having the second loop working more as a branch line with terminal features; I left the loop sidings in place although I would probably put a headshunt in that one as well. Maybe that line should have a run-around in the station but I havn't put that in.

 

All with approx setrack clearances so I know there can't be any clashes on the curves. I left the template I use to check spacings when working freehand, on the plan.

[Cliff M]

On 27/12/2023 at 09:03, ITG said:

if a train travels from turnout 14, to 9 then 3, how does it return to right road running? It has to make virtually a full circuit, then reverse over the crossover.

Thanks, Robin I appreciate how much time you have put into this.

I was trying to drive on the left so the outer circuit is clockwise and the inner anticlockwise. The above comment was posted in earlier layout versions so to stop trains travelling in the wrong direction I ended up with the two crossovers. I am now realising that this isn't always possible with model layouts. Is this correct? If so I could now use just one crossover and remove points 2 and 12 as the new side points 5,6,9,10 enable the same thing to happen ie the outer track can access the inner track (still going clockwise) and then through point 4 access the shunter sections. This would get me back to 8 ft width rather than 8ft 4 in.

If you are confirming that the shunter always pushes stock into sidings then I can also remove points 20, and 21 and just have straight dead ends. 

Could you clarify your idea here, please? (I've also offered an alternative by having the second loop working more as a branch line with terminal features; I left the loop sidings in place although I would probably put a headshunt in that one as well. Maybe that line should have a run-around in the station but I haven't put that in.)

I've posted my layout again for your reference.

[The Johnster]

Just a small worry about the 'loco/shunter shed' area, which I originally assumed were goods sheds; they probably need their own separate conncection to the running lines.  Having access to or egress from them to the running lines is not effective if said access/egress may be blocked at indeterminate times by shunting goods trains and yard pilots.  If turnout 13 moves to the track just below it,  and 23 is moved to the inner running line just above 9, making it a curved turnout, all will be well.  Or the loco facilities can move to one of the outer corners.

 

In reality, loco and goods yards are usually separate entities for this reason.  They are the responsibility of different departments of the railway structure, loco and traffic, and have slightly different methods of working that are not compatible with each other.  Movements in loco yards are carried out under the authority of the shed foreman, who tells the drivers what move to make and where he wants locos left when they are finished.  The drivers then move 'with caution' and keeping a look out for conflicting movements.  In a goods yard, shunting movements are controlled by handsignals (or handlamps at night) from shunters on the ground.  So a loco shed foreman ordering a move onto territory on which shunting is taking place is not a viable option!

[ITG]

Without wishing to send the OP back to square one, I do prefer @RobinofLoxley suggestion. Mainly for reasons outlined previously about the two internal run round loops and the lower edge turnout / crossing formation.

@Cliff M - why are you concerned about wrong road running relative to Robin’s suggestion? Note the replacement of the diamond crossing in your plans with a slip in Robins.

 

11 hours ago, Cliff M said:

shunter always pushes stock into sidings then I can also remove points 20, and 21 and just have straight dead ends

If a shunter doesn’t push, it will find itself trapped at the buffer ends, unless of course there is a run round loop somewhere. But the main benefit of having such a loop is that the arriving train can draw in, and the loco can be released by running round the loop. Then the shunter arrives at the tail of the train to do its work. But it’s not essential for this, as obviously if the arriving loco is trapped, if there’s sufficient space (headshunt or lead-in line) the shunter can release the said loco by drawing the entire train back, before starting its shunting work. For flexibility, I quite like the notion of one loop - it was two I found somewhat unnecessary.

[Dungrange]

On 01/01/2024 at 15:25, Cliff M said:

The new center-to-center smallest measurement at the start of the turns is now 2.35 in. Please let me know if I'm wrong or if I need even more space.

 

On 01/01/2024 at 16:12, Cliff M said:

Just to add, the distance between tracks at the center of all outer curves is now 2.25 in.

 

Set track spacing (ie the difference between 2nd radius and 3rd radius is 67 mm (2.64")), so you now have somewhere between streamline and set-track track spacing.  Is that enough?  Ultimately you're going to have to test and adjust as you're laying the track and perhaps still accept that some stock can't run simultaneously.

 

15 hours ago, RobinofLoxley said:

All with approx setrack clearances so I know there can't be any clashes on the curves. I left the template I use to check spacings when working freehand, on the plan.

 

Unfortunately, whilst you do appear to have set track spacing on the top part of your plan, you seem to have adopted streamline spacing for the lower part of the plan (it's controlled by the single slip and connecting turnout).  That therefore means that you're plan as drawn has the same issue as may of @Cliff M's earlier plans and any collision is likely to occur going into / coming out of the set-track curves at either end of the bottom straight.

 

On 01/01/2024 at 16:14, Cliff M said:

The edge of the board at the sides is 1.5 in but I can increase the board by 1 to 2 in if needed width ways.

 

I'd be tempted to increase the distance to the edge of the board if you can, but it depends on how you're going to treat the edges of your baseboard.  If you were to have an edge that extends above track level, then I think it's probably okay.  All you really need is to make sure that a derailment doesn't end up with stock falling to the floor.

 

[Dungrange]

14 hours ago, Cliff M said:

If you are confirming that the shunter always pushes stock into sidings then I can also remove points 20, and 21 and just have straight dead ends. 

 

A shunter will push or pull stock depending on the layout of the sidings to be shunted, but yes, it is more likely to be at one end, pushing stock into sidings and pulling stock out of sidings (otherwise it will get trapped without a run-round).  I agree with @ITG that there is no need for two run round loops - on will suffice.   I also agree with @The Johnster that your goods yard and locomotive stabling facilities should be kept separate.  Therefore, if sticking with your current plan, I'd remove Point 20 and extend these two sidings, replace point 15 with a straight and add a curved point in the track below that will connect to Points 18 and 19.  The operation of your goods facilities, then becomes arrival via Point 19.  The locomotive will then run round and the incoming wagons are then shunted to the two sidings off Point 18.  The main 'point' to note (no pun intended) is that the length of track beyond Point 21 is only long enough to release a Class 08 or similar, so if your inbound train is hauled by a Class 37, then it won't be able to run round and will remain trapped until a separate locomotive takes the train away.

 

I'm not sure what your thoughts are with @RobinofLoxley's suggestion, but I agree that the access junction is more prototypical and it also negates the need to extend your baseboard in an attempt to accommodate set-track spacing, which might still not be enough.  Because @RobinofLoxley is suggesting a single slip rather than a diamond crossing, a train travelling clockwise on your inner circuit will have direct access to the goods area via the slip, while traffic exiting the area will have direct access to travel clockwise around your outer circuit.  The crossovers at each end of the station provide the opportunity for all trains to use the top loop and therefore this can be used to both change direction (of a DMU), or run round a train.

[RobinofLoxley]

16 hours ago, Cliff M said:

Thanks, Robin I appreciate how much time you have put into this.

I was trying to drive on the left so the outer circuit is clockwise and the inner anticlockwise. The above comment was posted in earlier layout versions so to stop trains travelling in the wrong direction I ended up with the two crossovers. I am now realising that this isn't always possible with model layouts. Is this correct? If so I could now use just one crossover and remove points 2 and 12 as the new side points 5,6,9,10 enable the same thing to happen ie the outer track can access the inner track (still going clockwise) and then through point 4 access the shunter sections. This would get me back to 8 ft width rather than 8ft 4 in.

If you are confirming that the shunter always pushes stock into sidings then I can also remove points 20, and 21 and just have straight dead ends. 

Could you clarify your idea here, please? (I've also offered an alternative by having the second loop working more as a branch line with terminal features; I left the loop sidings in place although I would probably put a headshunt in that one as well. Maybe that line should have a run-around in the station but I haven't put that in.)

I've posted my layout again for your reference.ó

14

I have phone only for the next few days but ill do my best. The advice to trace what happens as the trains move is sound so here we go. Start on the outer clockwise loop with a goods train, loco first. Its going to the sidings off turnout 11 and can to get there it can cross to the inside via turnout 2 or 3 then reverse into the sidings, park the goods train and is free to pull wagons back out, or use the inner loop going clockwise to reach Turnout 14 where it can reverse onto the anticlockwise loop or continue on. Eventually it comes to 23 and being loco first can reverse into any siding. 

If you continue further you come to 1 you are clearly wrong road but cant cross to the outer loop so you have to reverse finally crossing back onto the outer loop at 9/10. 

Next put the train loco first on the anticlockwise loop. Apart from crossing onto the outer clockwise loop its only move is towards the sidings through 1, (reversing through 4 is also possible but a bit odd), loco first this time which is why you need the escapes if you use the sidings. Actually it could be any loco doing this so the heads must be able to take the longest loco plus a bit of wiggle room. Otherwise the train goes to the station then on to 14 where it can rejoin the anticlockwise loop or go back round the inside again.

Locos van therefore get to the sheds running light engine so thats ok. 

So what we found is that the crossings from outside to inside are actually duplicates - different routing but same outcome, so 2 and 12 and the crossover between can be removed. It would be easier to operate if the other cross- over was a slip as per my plan. 

The last item is the location of 1 and its been suggested more than once that this is relocated to the end of 11 to create three continuous loops. 

For the cross -overs the move that would be made would be to reverse direction after crossing, never continuing wrong line. the preferred place would be at 9/10 where the turnouts are 'trailing'. If there was a single slip between 3 and 13 that will work as a crossover as well.

I haven't finished but have to stop at this point.

[Cliff M]

Ok again thanks all.

Here is what I think could be the final working plan. I have simplified the layout by removing the second crossover and the original point no. 1.  I have also removed points  9,10 altogether and replaced 5 with an SLU-77 a bit further up the line. I have moved the station points 7 and 8 to the outer loop which gives me far more depth for station buildings, The edge of the board to the edge of the track for the station platform is now 198 mm and the smaller platform will have no buildings just a walkway bridge and will serve both sides, is 110mm. I have removed points 20,21 and reworked the sidings there. I have also reworked the sidings at the bottom right. Overall this reduces the number of points by 5 and the trains can access all tracks but if a train goes clockwise from the outer track to the second track, using points 4 and 5, then to get back onto the outer track it will have to reverse through 5 and 4 to do it, wrong way. I can live with that. Also if a train goes anticlockwise on track 2, to get onto the outer loop it will be going the wrong way through 5 and 4 again. I think I'm ok with this as it is a much simpler plan and gets back to the original 8-foot width which makes building the baseboard easier, but importantly gives the layout plenty of depth for the station.  

Please continue with the comments.  Thanks 

[The Johnster]

Much better, IMHO, but still no separate outlet from the loco shed to the main running lines.  It would bother me if it was my layout, and I'm not telling you what to do with yours, but I think you've tied yourself into a bit of a knot in that area.  I would be inclined to reposition the shed to the top left hand corner off the outer circuit platform loop, so that engines coming off shed can run onto the loop while expresses pass on the main line through the island platforrm.  This gives the opportunity to use the present loco shed site for a goods shed or small rail-served factory. 

[Cliff M]

Ok Johnster, I do get your point. I'm not sure exactly what you mean but is it something like my screenshot?

Just did it roughly.

BTW I have so many sidings as I think my rolling stock etc will be kept on the layout as I have no other room. I will pack up the locos though.

[Cliff M]

Or maybe like this? 

You can tell me what to do as much as you like as you have the experience and up until 5 weeks ago I knew nothing about model railways !!

[Torper]

So if you're going clockwise starting from the station on the outer circle, and ending up in one or other of the two inner circles, there's then no way to get back onto the outer circle without reversing over points 4 and 5, whereas previously you had a clear run through.  And similarily, if you start from the sidings and engine shed there's no way you can then get onto the outer circle without an awkward reverse, again over points 4 and 5.  And if you start anti-clockwise from Platform 2, you're stuck with staying forever on the outer circle or going into the industrial sidings.  I know Cliff says he can live with that, but it takes away a lot of the operational fun and is much less flexible than previous incarnations and I think it's a step backwards that would be regretted - it would be by me if it was my layout.  Of course all that could be simply resolved by Robin's recommendation that you should replacing the diamond with a single slip - I think that's essential if you otherwise adopt the current plan (if you're losing five sets of points you could afford the slip!).  I like Johnster's suggestion as to the engine shed.

[The Johnster]

Yes, that's the idea.  There is room for two roads in that corner, possibly three if you want a fuelling point as well.  Locos heading for the outer circuit back out over the new turnout, the driver changes ends, and off they go wherever they are wanted.  Those heading for the inner circuit back out over turnout 4 and proceed over 5, then wherever they are wanted.  As you are going to be removing the locos between sessions, the loco shed does not need much siding capacity. 

 

[Harlequin]

I think you’re getting advice about two things: how to make a good train set with play value and how to make a good model railway with some correct railway practices and features. The two things are somewhat conflicting and that’s why the design hasn’t resolved itself yet.

 

[Cliff M]

So how about this, I have removed the crossing, repositioned point 2 next to point 1, and added points 2A and 3A. Now we have the outer track conveniently connected to track 2 and the inner shunting area.

I think as you all say, this solves the remaining problems but do comment if you know better.

I have put two loco sidings in the top left corner. Is this near what you had in mind The Johnster?

I am building the baseboard now.

As always many thanks.

[Dungrange]

I'm going to raise the same issue as I have previously.  Between 2 and 2A you have a short straight between the points to increase the gap between the tracks, but between 3A and 9 you seem to be down to the Streamline track spacing of 2".  That therefore makes me question what the spacing is between the tracks 10 - 9 and 10 - 3 and what sort of collision risk you have here.

 

I think my other question is about the size of your operating voids. The pointed parts of each opening are not usable (because humans are quite round: some more so than others).  Do you actually intend to be able to stand in these voids or are they just going to be so that you can stick your head / an arm through?  Will your body / head / arm fit?  Given the overall dimensions are given as 8' x 5', they don't look particularly big.

[Torper]

That looks perfect.  It should provide fun operating as well as satisfying some of the so-called prototype requirements - I say so-called because it is virtually impossible to portray a roundy-roundy layout on an 8 x 5 board as prototypical.  Do remember - this is your layout and I think that for a first layout there should be a considerable fun element.  If there are faults you'll find them out and correct them and will know better next time.  I'm what might be called a serious modeller with a 17' x 2'6" fiddle yard to branch terminus layout in P4 and even though (or perhaps because) it largely follows prototype practice it becomes extremely boring to operate after not very long (that doesn't matter too much because my main interest is kit building).  If I had the room for it I'd have a second layout a bit like yours!

[The Johnster]

As you've adopted my suggestion of loco facilities in the top left corner, what is the building fed by points 12 & 13 for?  If it is to be a goods shed, which is what I would suggest, you can lose one of the roads, and perhaps replace it with a mileage/coal siding, though that would intrude on the left hand void.  Tbh, I can't see that void being large enough to be of much practical use. and I agree with Dungrange about the size of the voids.  Extending the rh one downwards and to the left will make it much more comfortable and improve your 'reach' access to the junctions at the bottom. 

 

How many people do you envisage operating the layout?  If you are going to be flying solo, there is probably enough to do to keep you busy, but if you're going mob-handed, the person operating the outer circuit might appreciate parcels sidings in the top left corner, at the risk of overcrowding the space and losing scenery.

[Cliff M]

Thanks, Dungrange, I take your point about the distance between those points and I thank you for pointing that out. I have missed this at some stage so I have now inserted an  ST-203 at 1.6 in to widen the curves in the lower left quadrant. I cannot have any greater size than these as they push the layout further up the board and it then takes footprint size away from the station.

This also meant changing point 10 to a curved one and moving it further up the board. The minimum distance now at the narrowest part of any of the curves is 2.2 in. 

The operating voids were just to place them on the board so other posters knew I was going to include them. I have made an attempt to make them more realistic but I will shape them after the track is laid as I need to cross some of the main support battens and finally cut them then.

 

Thanks, Torper for your encouragement. Yes, I really wanted a layout with lots of shunting opportunities and plenty to do. I will have all manual switches for the points and it means I can have 3 trains running altogether, say a class 37 plus 2/3 carriages on the outer track and maybe just a two loco DMU on the middle track while I can have say a class 08 shunter doing movements in the inner shunting/industry area. 

So maybe I've finally got there with this layout thanks to all of you.

I would appreciate it if any of you could recommend an online retailer where I can buy the track. I don't have any shops near me so it has to be mail order. Not necessarily the cheapest but someone you guys trust and have had good dealings with over time.

Likewise all the point motors and wiring etc. I am going to use MP 1s and MP 4s

Many thanks all.

 

 

[Cliff M]

Just to add for The johnster, the inner shed I thought could be for the shunter only, I might well reduce it to one track or have two sheds, one for the shunter and one as a cleaning wash shed.

I will be operating the layout primarily on my own so that's another reason I am going for the Digitrax DCS 52 controller as I think I will be seated most of the time. Do you use certain retailers?