track plan

[penguin_sam]

Hi 

After comments on track plan. It's going to be 00 and room width is about 4m so tight (450mm) radii on return loops. Fits into alcove on left. Need to use room for bed as well so limited in space.

[TonyMay]

It doesn't really resemble the prototype in any way.

 

The electrics will be a challenge for a newbie, especially if it's DC.  Everything seems to run through that one double slip in the middle of the plan.  Relying on everything running smoothly through a double slip is... ...brave.

 

[DCB]

That's a lot of track and points for a layout where only one train can run at a time.  The 3 sidings lower centre are just about useless .  Its great for watching trains run round sharp curves, and you can keep several train stationary while you run The one.
I Would put sidings inside the return loops goods yard in one terminus station in tother.... or terminus with loco depot like my doodle, just needs one reversible feed for terminus between station and turntable,Ideally loops would drop down a bit but i would extend an overall roof over the loop with station building beyond and try to hide the loop s.  At least mine lets you shunt while a train runs round the loop line and you can have three more in the loops to ring changes  |Obviously loop with turntable acts as return loop to get trains reversed to go back into the station and leave in either direction Just set station polarity to suit direction around the main loop Electrics just need a couple of DPDT centre off switches and two controllers for DC.    Sky and your credit card's the limit for DCC
 

[penguin_sam]

Hi

 

Basic plan started from end to end Minories as you may be able to see. I have in the past built such a layout. I wanted to build something that could be more easily automated; have return loops for continuous running and a more flexible 'fiddle yard'. The tight radii are unavoidable in my limited space. I am not a newbie particularly when it comes to electronics. I've been a member of MERG for many years. The layout will be DCC using DCC-EX. The three 'sidings' at centre bottom were to form an engine shed. I haven't used double slips before - are they less conducive to smooth running than back to back points would be? I was planning on buying a peco code 75 electrofrog one to play with.  

[njee20]

I think what you want is important here (as you’ve alluded to in your second post), because that’s not what I’d build in the space. I have to agree that only having capacity for one train moving feels remiss in the space, but it’s your layout.  

[RobinofLoxley]

I would find it preferable if you posted the dimensions of the space with restrictions, along with the plan. Otherwise we're a bit in the dark, and looking at a rather weird plan. Still there's been quite a bit of this recently.

 

If I had to choose between what @DCB has drawn up and the original plan, DCB is going to win every time.

Edited March 4 by RobinofLoxley

[DavidB-AU]

On 04/03/2024 at 15:36, DCB said:

 

I'd agree with this. Operationally it works a lot better than the Deane pattern station in the OP plan. Goods yard tracks can probably be a bit closer which would give more opportunity to shunt while a main line train is running. I would actually make the storage tracks a little further apart as sometimes have to fit 1:1 scale fingers between them.

 

I would even go as far as something like this to make the balloon on the left as wide as possible.

 

[penguin_sam]

Hi

 

I did mention dimensions and restrictions: see original post. I can't really make much sense of the rough hand-drawn offerings I'm afraid. I understand the tendency towards 2 track roundy but I did that as a kid. Thanks 

[kevinlms]

43 minutes ago, penguin_sam said:

Hi

 

I did mention dimensions and restrictions: see original post. I can't really make much sense of the rough hand-drawn offerings I'm afraid. I understand the tendency towards 2 track roundy but I did that as a kid. Thanks 

What twin track roundy? Nothing like that on any drawing presented so far.

 

No point submitting your original plan, asking for comments, if you aren't prepared for alternatives. I can't see any dimensions on your original plan, except for saying it's partly in an alcove and room width is 4 metres.

 

Your original plan centred around a double slip, these are actually of tighter radius than the envelope they appear to take - it's an unavoidable problem, because of the track parts that have to fit in. The code 75 version is miles better than the code 100 version.

 

[DCB]

I don't see room for a double track  oval.   To be honest a double track oval is a lot more prototypical than a figure eight,  you can do most real train things on a double track oval with two crossovers and a siding.    Even Minories is a bit far fetched.  It was a portable showcase for Hornby Dublo and Triang Tank engines and suburban coaches dating form about 1958.  Its never been bettered but the operation  with a different loco taking trains back out is a bit niche, Liverpool street (Broad Street?)  and  Moorgate are the only places I know of where this happened. 

It would be useful to have the sizes of the available area  as  it looks ideal for  pair of helixes.

[RobAllen]

8 hours ago, DCB said:

Its never been bettered but the operation  with a different loco taking trains back out is a bit niche, Liverpool street (Broad Street?)  and  Moorgate are the only places I know of where this happened. 

Bath Queen Square too.

[The Johnster]

Merthyr High Street.

 

It could be done at any terminus where quick turnaround of stock was needed and the pilot did not have to remove it to carriage sidings for cleaning and servicing.  Quick once though to pick up rubbish, top-up water for toilet tanks (not needed for suburban stock as at Minories) and replacement toilet paper, supplies and fresh water for restaurant car, all done in about half an hour.  Swansea, Penzance, doubtless many others.

[RobinofLoxley]

The thing that bothered me about the original proposal, and most others too I would think, is that everything goes through one double slip, which puts it into train set territory, plus it wouldn't be that great to operate, despite having some good features. It isn't the best solution to the problem, even though it's not clear what the problem is. So I have done a few tweaks; it was quite hard to copy as a layout plan, so some changes of angle etc. on my tweak exist because I couldn't easily draft an exact copy of the original to edit. In fact, the original plan could stand with the single bypass edit of two turnouts. So I left in place that the 'lower' turn through the slip (now a single btw) still exists. The other tweak is that I couldnt resist making part of the loop system into a dual carriageway, but where that might end I have left open. This introduces some operating issues that weren't there before, but there you go.

[DCB]

@RobinofLoxley   You are down to 1st radius on the lower return loop if the O P is correct and the loops are limited to 450 mill which is 18" in American.    The square  15 from left 3 from bottom is critical , if you can build over it you can build it albeit with 1st radius or delete the 2nd track  if not the plan is a non starter. I'm struggling to understand the shape of the available space

[RobinofLoxley]

@DCB, two comments; firstly looking at the double track on the right, I drew the inner loop first using exactly the minimum radius specified by the OP; second, that minimum curve spec isnt binding on me, I can draw what I like especially if I'm trying to illustrate a point as much as make a serious proposal. Really, the minimum curve requirement is there because of other features of the layout - obviously the OP was trying to avoid a simple oval or double oval, as soon as you close those ends up the space they need dominates everything - there was some ingenuity in the original plan to get a continuous run out of it.

 

I forgot to add this but there are a few positions where the loop curves can be eased a bit by using curved turnouts - I show only one, but there are several opportunities. Also, I would ensure that in any final version all the loop curves could be 3rd or fourth radius exactly, as loops like that are easier to construct accurately from setrack. Theres usually a single piece of flexi that has to be custom formed in such loops.

 

It's true we dont know the dimensions and other restrictions, but one thing that we can see, is that the left hand loop needs to be empty as it will have to be an operator access.

Edited March 10 by RobinofLoxley

[kevinlms]

59 minutes ago, RobinofLoxley said:

It's true we dont know the dimensions and other restrictions, but one thing that we can see, is that the left hand loop needs to be empty as it will have to be an operator access.

This is why I don't very often contribute to this topic, as in this case, much needed detail is omitted and even when clarification is requested, it isn't forthcoming leading to assumption making. Yes, operator access is almost certainly required, but the OP doesn't specifically say that to be the case.

 

As an example, the 3 lower tracks in the centre, when questioned, the comment was made that this site is intended for a loco depot, but nothing at all is labelled in the original track plan.

[Flying Pig]

This plan doesn't seem to have gone down well with the team here.  However, if I am interpreting @penguin_sam correctly, it seems to be cunningly designed for maximum flexibilty of running.  A train can leave the terminus and run directly to the hidden sidings, or return to the station via the right hand return loop.  On returning to the station it can terminate or use the left hand return loop to reach the hidden sidings or follow the return loop all the way to the station throat and effectively start its journey again.  There is also scope for continuous running either in a figure of eight or round the circuit formed by the hidden sidings.

 

I don't agree that it is completely unrailwaylike, though it would look better if the right hand loop could be double track in both directions.  But as there really isn't space for that, single line running will have to be accepted.

 

If using it in its current form, I would tweak it in a few places.  I would rearrange the central junction as indicated below with a single slip above the yellow spot and the double slip changed for a single.  I'd probably also dump the short siding indicated by the red spot and extend the platform onto a rearranged curve for the left hand loop (echoes of Hotel Curve).  The main platforms would benefit from a removable extension (assuming they don't butt up against a wall) as they are quite tight for length.  And there's obviously scope for goods inside the left hand loop.

 

 

[penguin_sam]

Hi

 

I'm grateful  for contributions and the spirit in which they are offered. The room is shown here with chimney breast and built in cupboard. I can't really extend further towards the bottom. As I mentioned previously the width of the room is about 4m. I have plopped a turntable into the sketch as it might be fun to automate. I have made the 'loop' double track and removed double slip. The bottom left will be station with goods siding. Top left is engine shed. The layout will be on two boards so it can be up-ended and stored against a wall if the room needs to be used for other purposes. Dare I ask for further comments?

Cheers

 

 

[DavidB-AU]

Operationally this works quite well for the space available. There could be scope for a level frame at the front to work the station throat and junction/crossovers.

 

If you're sticking strictly to left hand running, the track highlighted red doesn't really do anything. That space could be used to make the terminating/platform tracks longer.

 

[penguin_sam]

Thinking that station and engine shed would be something like this. With the station buuilding on an upper level with option to hide some tight turns with high level road/bridge etc.

[Flying Pig]

7 hours ago, penguin_sam said:

Thinking that station and engine shed would be something like this. With the station buuilding on an upper level with option to hide some tight turns with high level road/bridge etc.

 

I'm a bit less keen on this one.  The problem is you don't really have space for double junctions, so the hidden sidings are isolated from the inner circuit.  This means that trains departing the terminus on the correct line can't ever reach them which rather negates the advantage of having double track.  Perhaps single the loop somewhere on the right and hide that part of it?

 

Not sure about the station.  The through platforms will hold longer trains, but on the other hand, the bays look very short and there's no runround for any of the platforms.

 

[RobinofLoxley]

The first revision certainly works, but I can't see how the revision with an upper level works at all. Have you done any work on gradients?

 

You also need to recognise access. You cant reach top right or left to fix a stall or derailment and have put objects in the way of access hatches that would be needed in the baseboards. Most people reckon on a human reach limit of 80-90cm.

[RobAllen]

1 hour ago, RobinofLoxley said:

The first revision certainly works, but I can't see how the revision with an upper level works at all. Have you done any work on gradients?

I read it as the station building would be above the platforms creating a scenic break to hide the trac curves.

[DCB]

11 hours ago, penguin_sam said:

Hi

 

Is there any back scene or similar hiding the storage loops.  It looks like someone has drawn the storage and is fitting everything else around it  and trying to fill every square inch with track. 
The radius of the return loops would fit a smaller board  see doodle 
For me this iteration does notwork at all there is no way from the station to the storage loops anticlockwise
The station could use an overall roof  to hide the curve.   There doesn't look to be much room for a backscene and it would hide a big chunk of the layout. see doodle

I was going to add a drawing of my 6ft 4" X  4ft 6"  "Bed" layout which has a terminus, continuous run storage and return loop, albeit with 1st radius and 3 levels, but is just about impossible to draw in Anyrail.  

We built it on the spare bed  to stop relatives deciding to spend the night at our place!    Still not finished after almost 20 years.  Portable it is not.

Edited March 13 by DCB

[Pete the Elaner]

There are some questions which need to be asked:

 

Era?

 

Many pre-war stations had a generic goods yard. It looks like you want to give the impression that you have a large terminus because you have a depot & turntable, so running round the train will be pointless because the loco will need to be prepared (& maybe also turned) before its next journey.

 

If you are running in the diesel era, then things are very different. The generic goods yard went around the same time as steam. Any yards left will be dedicated to a company or use like oil, ballast, coal, sand. The locos do not need turning, but turntables were still used to same on long sidings. Running round trains became a thing of the past though: smaller lines were served by units & larger ones justified having an extra loco or 2 ready to haul out the train, then the released one was used to haul the next incoming train. This saved a lot of time compared with running around.

 

Whatever the era, a yard would need some sort of road access unless it is serving a specific business: Royal Mail have a rail head in Chelmsford with road access "off scene". McVities have one near Willesden.

 

If you try to fit too much rail into the space you have, you will end up with something disappointing. Many of us have been there. Double slips are not a short cut to compressing things either. I do my best to avoid them.

 

What do you want to achieve? Something with some realism or a loop on which you want to run trains?

What era do you want to model?

 

There are no right & wrong answers. Someone wanting to run a tender loco with 2 wagons is equally as valid as somebody wanting to model a small branch line station correct to the last brick.