puffernutter Posted August 18, 2010 Share Posted August 18, 2010 I thought it would be nice to share this, to see what you deans of design thought. As mentioned in previous threads, I'm interested in S7 but without a layout and finding it hard to focus on a prototype I've been asking around on this forum for advice. My first leaning was towards that staple of small layouts - a goods-based shunting yard, and with british prototype wagons and vans being so short it would be space efficient. While I'm still exploring this concept, I wondered if a layout that could possibly support slightly larger and more exotic locomotives in a setting more familiar to my non-railfan self - the big passenger station. By including a bay platform of sorts for parcels and newspapers I can still build covered carriages, horseboxes, goods van, etc. The plan overall is 14 feet, staging at either end is approximately 3' which should cover the average pre-grouping tender locomotive and a couple of six wheeled coaches. Fourteen feet is literally the longest space I can dedicate to a layout, but if the situation should ever arise that I wanted to run longer trains it wouldn't be too much of a stretch to bolt on some extra track boards to either end of the layout. I foresee operations to revolve around the servicing of the mainline trains: they will arrive loco first, and without a runaround will require the pilot locomotive to shuffle coaches around to the correct platform for departure and said trains to head off to the loco servicing area (staging) for turning, watering a coaling before backing onto their new train. Goods trains will be there to shove vans and boxes into the bay platform, or special railmotor services for events. What do you guys think? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest jim s-w Posted August 18, 2010 Share Posted August 18, 2010 Hiya I would swap the 2 points at the top for a double slip - would mean you can lengthen the top platform and would be a bit more interesting. HTH Jim Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ColinW Posted August 18, 2010 Share Posted August 18, 2010 Hi, if you follow Jim's suggestion of taking out the two points on the top track and replacing with a double slip, how about removing the two points on bottom mainline and replacing with a 3-way onto the double slip, this should allow you to keep the point to the loco siding to remain in place. Colin Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
puffernutter Posted August 18, 2010 Author Share Posted August 18, 2010 Well, this would be my first layout hand-laid, and while I've done a few turnouts I'm not sure how confident I'd be with a double-slip being a lynch-pin to the operation of the layout! Although I guess it could be an interesting mini-project to learn midway through with prototypes and whatnot. I asked this question before in the Permanent WAy subforum - just how much harder is it to hand-lay a double-slip and/or threeway, assuming I've got the time, patience and plans? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
puffernutter Posted August 18, 2010 Author Share Posted August 18, 2010 I'm not sure about the threeway yet, but it does flow better with a double slip. Any advice therein? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest jim s-w Posted August 18, 2010 Share Posted August 18, 2010 Hiya It takes longer and there is more work in a double slip than a normal point but its no more difficult. HTH Jim Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ColinW Posted August 19, 2010 Share Posted August 19, 2010 The new plan including the double slip looks good, but I still feel a 3 way onto the double slip would save some space, you could build them as a one piece! if you feel you have the confidence. Also having looked at the plan again I think that you will require a crossover from bottom mainline/parcels bay to the top line so that trains can leave right line running!again this could be made as a one piece section! Colin Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold beast66606 Posted August 19, 2010 RMweb Gold Share Posted August 19, 2010 I would also add a trailing crossover, even if only part was visible. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ColinW Posted August 19, 2010 Share Posted August 19, 2010 If you are unsure about the 3 way point, but will be happy with double slip can I suggest that you move the right hand point and double slip forward to where the left hand point into the parcels bay is then have another double slip onto a left hand point from the parcels bay and this will give you the trailing crossover as well. Colin Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
puffernutter Posted August 22, 2010 Author Share Posted August 22, 2010 Beast66606 - I would like to keep the length of the layout down, so I may add a cosmetic 'toe' for the trailing crossover at the station throat, it wouldn't be functional because that would add another foot in length to the design. The trailing crossover is 'off layout'. Building a three-way into a double-slip in Scale-standards seems about the most challenging thing I could possibly attempt! Ha! I will print off that layout in Templot and lay it out on some paper to see what kind of thing I can whip up, or whether I should try at all. It's a shame I'm not modelling the 1860's with their stub turnouts really, isn't it? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold martin_wynne Posted August 23, 2010 RMweb Gold Share Posted August 23, 2010 Building a three-way into a double-slip in Scale-standards seems about the most challenging thing I could possibly attempt! Hi, A 3-way tandem turnout is a lot trickier to design than a double slip, but much easier to build, once you have the template. Only one extra V-crossing needed and no K-crossings. In designing the tandem, make sure that a. the switches are sufficiently staggered to have room to open the second set of points (blades), b. the middle V-crossing is far enough from the other rails to leave room for the wing rails, and c. all 3 V-crossings can have their check rails properly placed. There is a video on the Templot web site showing a tandem being designed. The notes about it are at: http://85a.co.uk/for...hp?post_id=4150 regards, Martin. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
puffernutter Posted August 29, 2010 Author Share Posted August 29, 2010 Here's the readjustment of the plan to include the tandem 3-way albeit without exact adjustment - I haven't yet adjusted the station roads and staging balance, but I do like the look: What do you guys think? Where can I shave and/or save space now? I guess another 6-8" or so could be shaved where the platforms are, and reduce the depth of the overall roof? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
edcayton Posted August 29, 2010 Share Posted August 29, 2010 I was just thinking that if you wanted to avoid the complex pointwork, the throat of Cyril Freezer's Minories is very similar to this AND includes the facing crossover. Ed Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
meple Posted August 29, 2010 Share Posted August 29, 2010 Here's the readjustment of the plan to include the tandem 3-way albeit without exact adjustment - I haven't yet adjusted the station roads and staging balance, but I do like the look: What do you guys think? Where can I shave and/or save space now? I guess another 6-8" or so could be shaved where the platforms are, and reduce the depth of the overall roof? You may consider this (it's in P4) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
puffernutter Posted August 29, 2010 Author Share Posted August 29, 2010 Smashing it up more shortens it by another 18" or so: Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ColinW Posted August 30, 2010 Share Posted August 30, 2010 The new trackplan looks good and i'm glad you like the way the 3way point looks in it. I would still like to see a trailing crossover as this will allow you access to all the platforms when entering and leaving. Also does the loco headshunt have to be so long? Colin Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
puffernutter Posted September 5, 2010 Author Share Posted September 5, 2010 Hi Colin, I wouldn't add a trailing crossover to the plan functionally, because I want the sector plate to start close to where the view block is - but I can see adding a cosmetic set of switchblades so from first glance it appears to be there. The loco headshunt isn't that long, I don't think - the clearance point is only around the 'P' in "Pilot loco road", if you look at the left hand side of the tandem above. I had another thought, which may help the progress overall. On the left hand side I was supposing an outright closed-off fiddle yard, long enough to house a loco and the first half of a carriage so it would hide the true length of the trains passing through the layout. However, I've realised that I can make this a feature, and a little 'nugget' of layout to bite off without much investment. See Bob Hughes' Sutton Road for example: This is pretty much the size that my fiddle yard on the station side will need to be - two coaches plus buffer stops and platform. This would create a photoplank for my models, provide half the staging for this layout, and if Bob's testimonial is to be agreed with - possibly an engrossing layout in it's own right. The only compromise I can see is that of length though, even accepting this is to be a micro-layout-######-staging addition to the main layout, there's always the possiblity the latter wouldn't be built. If it was to, it'd limit this nugget to just 2' square. Thoughts? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
puffernutter Posted September 6, 2010 Author Share Posted September 6, 2010 I believe I may have reduced this station down to it's minimum throat length with this iteration, 6'6 x 2'. Depending on era, staging would dictate the overall size of the layout. I guess that approximately a hundred feet of hidden space would be best - that would cover any british locomotive plus a section of the coach behind it - in pre-grouping mode that would probably extend to a tender locomotive and a couple of 35' wheelbase six-wheelers. With that in mind staging on the left would need to be approx 2'6", and on the right the traverser would occupy around 3', bringing the overall layout length to a shade under 13 feet. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hugh Flynn Posted September 12, 2010 Share Posted September 12, 2010 hi well i must say about two years ago i drew up a plan and cant believe you are about 90% on the same lines as mine i will be doing my layout in OO for Derby show this is only a trial to see if it will work in O gauge for the forthcoming Heljan Deltic. So i am looking forward to see how this progresses Best of luck Hugh Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nickinwestwales Posted September 14, 2010 Share Posted September 14, 2010 Hi there-R.E complex point construction:-Have never dabbled myself,but I imagine if you can knock out a combined 3-way & double slip then anything after should be a walk in the park....I agree,it does sound intimidating but I would think if you just concentrate on one bit at a time rather than the whole complex ......... ATB Nick Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
PWSlack Posted September 15, 2010 Share Posted September 15, 2010 Here's the readjustment of the plan to include the tandem 3-way albeit without exact adjustment - I haven't yet adjusted the station roads and staging balance, but I do like the look: What do you guys think? Where can I shave and/or save space now? I guess another 6-8" or so could be shaved where the platforms are, and reduce the depth of the overall roof? One could get more in by going down a scale. How about S instead? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.