Trewartha Quay (00)

[SMR CHRIS]

Looks like your progressing well and I like the idea of being able to extend the additional storage lots of opperational potential

Allows for a runaround without having points and the length that would be required.

You could progressively add the sector plates as you develop the layout.

If you added a few inches to the layout you would free up your clearances.

 

Happy Modelling

[aforsyth]

Just to update - I've almost completed my baseboard design and should have most of the wood. My artist wife keeps nicking pieces of 9mm MDF, which she finds are great for oil painting, but the advantage is I can justify buying more sheets! So there may be other layouts eventually on future offcuts.

 

I'll need to work out the electrics at some point soon - I need it to be both DC and DCC compatible (not at the same time!), since half my newer stock is DCC, and upgrades from DC will be slow. I will post an initial design for your comments in the next week, hopefully, but if anyone sees any potential issues, I'd be grateful for any pointers. All points are electrofrog.

 

I do also have a query about the placement of the catch point(s). I added one as shown in the plan (copied below again for easy reference), but according to prototype requirements, would CP also be required in siding 3 / the freight line, and what about in the headshunt / bays? I don't want to go overboard here, but I would like it to be authentic to GWR/WR standards if possible.

 

 

Thank you!

Alan

[NunneyCastle5029]

Hi Alan,

 

looks a great plan, regarding your trap point for freight siding No 3 yes i think it would need a trap point as you always protect the mainline, with either a head shunt or a trap/catch point.

 

for your DC power i can see only two power points which would be located at the toe of the 3 way point and the tow of the point heading to the hidden passenger track,

just make sure you put isolating fish plates between those two points so you don't short on the frog

 

hope this helps

 

Kevin

[aforsyth]

Thanks Kevin - that's very helpful. I'll try to pick up another trap/catch point as you suggest.

For DC power, that would make sense, thanks. I was trying to work out block sections to allow 2+ trains to be operated on there, but it starts getting complicated - maybe I'll leave that scenario to DCC!

 

I remember reading about a standard rule for isolating specific rails when using electrofrog points - I'm guessing that's what you're referring to?

 

Thanks again,

Alan

 

Hi Alan,

 

looks a great plan, regarding your trap point for freight siding No 3 yes i think it would need a trap point as you always protect the mainline, with either a head shunt or a trap/catch point.

 

for your DC power i can see only two power points which would be located at the toe of the 3 way point and the tow of the point heading to the hidden passenger track,

just make sure you put isolating fish plates between those two points so you don't short on the frog

 

hope this helps

 

Kevin

[47137]

For the catch point, it would be worthwhile to assess what are the usual traffic patterns. If the "top" platform is for passenger use, and the "bottom" platform is for occasional milk/parcels and even more occasional passenger workings, then the main line is from the top platform to the hidden passenger track, and there would be one catch point between the two sets of points.

 

Even if this isn't how you actually intend to run the layout, it might be more aesthetically pleasing and also show where the main line actually is. I'm a bit wary of using a three-way point to connect two sidings onto a "main line".

 

- Richard.

[aforsyth]

Thanks Richard, your assumption is right (mainline would be the upper platform road). I originally envisaged this plan as a small BLT, before realising that allowing the two platform roads to extend onwards allows a functional run-round loop to be created, allowing short inward/outward freight workings to take place as well as steam haulage.

 

I agree with you about  the siting of the CP. The only practical issue with putting the catch point in-between the 3-way and adjoining point is that the length of the 'hidden siding' (or headshunt) decreases. At this moment I can just get a 2-car DMU into the hidden siding and 08 + 3 wagons into the headshunt. Although I do plan to add traversers/sector plates at a later date to extend operational interest, I may not always be able fit them in more confined spaces, so I'm trying to make the main board as self-contained as possible. I could extend the board by 4 inches or so, but I'm wanting to keep it as near as possible to the 4' x 1' mantra. Hmm... that's going to bug me now...

 

Perhaps this will have to be a further application of modellers' license? 

 

Alan

[47137]

Catch points need space and even if you squeeze one in, it will be much closer to the main line than you would really like. I have one on my new layout, a few inches away from the main line and I will accept this, tho' I'm sure many modellers will see it as "wrong".

 

I don't think there is a particular mantra in 4 x 1 feet. At the moment, the hidden siding takes up a third of a square foot. So if you add 4 inches to the length, it'll still be four square feet of modelled area.

 

- Richard.

 

 

[aforsyth]

Very good point, Richard, thank you. I had forgotten that the hidden siding itself (like the fiddle yards) is not counted in the modelled area.

 

However, another comment that I received was that it's not unknown for the 3-way itself to be used as a 'catch point', with all personnel provided with strict instructions to ensure that the points are set away from the mainline when no passage is needed. This does make sense to me, and for simplicity (and some space-saving) I will go with that approach for the moment. I will, however, still need another set of catch points for siding 3, which I will place on order.

 

 

[Edit - Doh! I realise that using two catch points instead of the one set, as you suggest, is not actually simpler, so I will check the layout plan again in AnyRail before I make a final decision].

 

 

Catch points need space and even if you squeeze one in, it will be much closer to the main line than you would really like. I have one on my new layout, a few inches away from the main line and I will accept this, tho' I'm sure many modellers will see it as "wrong".

 

I don't think there is a particular mantra in 4 x 1 feet. At the moment, the hidden siding takes up a third of a square foot. So if you add 4 inches to the length, it'll still be four square feet of modelled area.

 

- Richard.

[47137]

You can make quite a respectable looking catch point by cutting a Peco small radius point in half. I think this looks better than their own catch points. If you cut the webbing between the sleepers you can put a slight curve on it too (the curve in the same direction as the handing). There's no "need" to replace the timbering, I just did this for cosmetic reasons.

 

- Richard.

 

[aforsyth]

Great idea Richard! I do have a good number of older small radius Insulfrog points, so that might be worth thinking about. However, while pondering on your earlier suggestion, I came up with the following revised plan. The baseboard length is now 54", so probably hovering around the 4' modelling area still due to a slightly larger hidden area. This increases the main passenger bay length and siding area. I discovered, though, that by keeping the sidings at the same approximate length, I realised a loop could be added.

 

 

 

Is this worth the extra complexity and space on the 'self-contained' board (without fiddleyards attached, with the assumption that these could also provide a loop capability)?

 

Thanks,

Alan

[NunneyCastle5029]

Hi Alan,

your new revised plan does look much better and could certainly give you more scope for operational interest.

 

Richard your catch points are so simple and brilliant, defiantly going to use that idea for my next layout

 

Cheers

 

Kevin

[south_tyne]

Hi Alan,

 

I concur with the above, I think the revised plan works much better. That extra little bit of space helps greatly.

 

David

[47137]

Putting in the loop probably changes the general feel of the layout from being a station with a few sidings to being a dockside with a station nearby, but the loop does make the plan so much better.

 

The loop may be a bit short but you could move the three-way point and the point beside it to the left and make the platforms a couple of inches shorter. Well worth a full-size mock-up to see how many wagons will fit into the loop.

 

- Richard.

[aforsyth]

Thanks guys. There seems to be overwhelming support for the addition of the loop.

 

As you say, Richard, it does change the feel of the layout. I still like the simple elegance of the earlier version, but having a loop enables parcels and other types of van to be held on the headshunt/bay, adding to shunting complexity and then included in a steam-era or departmental train with goods vans. Lots of possibilities.

 

The only problem with shortening the headshunt is that it will then no longer hold the shunter + 3 wagons, as per Inglenook rules, which I definitely want to stick to it at all possible. In the end it might be necessary to extend the layout still further another 6 inches to the right. This could theoretically allow 5 wagons to be stored in the loop, and extend the storage line to match, but at 5' long, I would definitely need to chop the board in two near the 3' (left section) and 2' (right section) for transport, which would have to be designed carefully to avoid bisecting the dock!

 

 

Hmmm... lots to think about. Thanks for all your comments!

 

 

Putting in the loop probably changes the general feel of the layout from being a station with a few sidings to being a dockside with a station nearby, but the loop does make the plan so much better.

 

The loop may be a bit short but you could move the three-way point and the point beside it to the left and make the platforms a couple of inches shorter. Well worth a full-size mock-up to see how many wagons will fit into the loop.

 

- Richard.

[aforsyth]

So - here's the updated layout version. I'm pretty pleased with it - as I can now hopefully fit two lines in the storage area, increasing the flexibility of single board operations.

 

 

 

I spent quite some time trying to work out a crossover at the entrance of the storage section, then found that a double slip works well if the catch point is removed. I have a couple of old double slips that should serve here, and being outside the main shunting area I'm prepared to give them a go. It means that I'm back to using the 3-way as a catch point, but I'm fine with that; I've added in two slips on the siding throats anyway.

The board length has now increased to 4' 8", and may need an extra inch or two in order to ensure the Inglenook parameters are met (and shunter + 5 wagons fits in the storage roads). I will have to work out how and where to cut it in two, since it's too long for easy transportation in the car now.

 

I have 5 or 6 weeks coming up where I'm away or very busy, so I can't put saw to wood immediately, but I'll muse on baseboard and wiring plans as I can. In terms of stock, I will probably aim for mid 60s to mid 80s where possible. Most of my new stock is mid 80s, but I recognise that short wheelbase private owner box vans don't look too prototypical when shunted by an 08 in InterCity livery at a quay, or can I justify that somehow??? 

 

Any comments welcome in the meantime - I'd prefer to catch and fix big mistakes on paper first! 

 

 

Cheers,
Alan

[NunneyCastle5029]

Hi Alan,

 

that does look much better and already has the industrial feel to it, if your wanting to split the layout into smaller sections, you could split it around the station area, as its only 2 tracks to line up plus then you can have that part of the scenery on the fiddle yard board at that end only a suggestion but it might get you out of a problem

 

Cheers

 

Kevin

[aforsyth]

Thanks Kevin - that's an interesting idea. The only trouble with splitting boards there (or indeed in most places on the layout) is that a body of visible water has to be over a baseboard join. Is there any way to hide that?

 

The ideal join position I was going to use originally was vertically through the Ground Frame (which could be removable and could partially hide the join), but this is now on same vertical line as multiple points. I'm wondering whether slotting in short (1") pieces of track at all 4 track joints immediately above the GF would work? These would then be cut and soldered appropriately to copper plate sleepers. This would slightly extend the required length of sidings and I'd have to jiggle the storage lines a bit, but might work, rather than trying to solder points directly at the baseboard join?

 

Anyway - the idea of having the 2' Fiddle Yard already on the left hand baseboard is a good one - I'll have to think on that!

 

Alan

 

Hi Alan,

 

that does look much better and already has the industrial feel to it, if your wanting to split the layout into smaller sections, you could split it around the station area, as its only 2 tracks to line up plus then you can have that part of the scenery on the fiddle yard board at that end only a suggestion but it might get you out of a problem

 

Cheers

 

Kevin

[47137]

If it was mine, I'd leave it one piece. It is short enough to carry vertically through a doorway. Rail joins so close to a point and especially the slip look like trouble to me.

 

Thinking about slips and trouble, it would be worthwhile to make the road bridge removable - perhaps some small magnets to hold it down.

 

- Richard.

[aforsyth]

Just to mention - Richard kindly reviewed my plan in AnyRail, and confirmed that the layout above with two storage sidings and three sidings won't fit on the 11.5" wide board. He created a more rationalised, yet still attractive plan with one storage siding and two sidings, which he's welcome to post here as an alternative. I have, however, been captivated by the plan above, so will duly widen the layout as required, to 13 or 14 inches as necessary, in order to ensure trains don't "fall off the edge"! 

 

My original motivation was to stick to the publicised (yet informal) rules of the original micro-layout standard - under 48 square inches (excluding storage sidings). In the interest of more flexible operations and better storage, however, I will relax that requirement, although I still need to make sure the board is portable and will fit in the car (which I still haven't really tested...!).

 

Thanks again to Richard for his advice.

[47137]

Alan kindly sent me a copy of his Anyrail plan from 26th March. I set the grid to two inches (this helps me visualise things) and it was fairly clear things were a bit too tight for comfort. Here is my edited version - I have taken out one of the storage tracks, one of the sidings and the catch point. The plan now falls rather short of what Alan wants, but it shows what you can get into four square feet of visible modelled area.

 

- Richard.

 

[rue_d_etropal]

In some ways I prefer the original simpler plan. All that extra complexity which might reduce rather than increase movement . I would change the freight line to a siding.

 

<Admin edit - removed promotional comments>

[47137]

Alan,

 

Do you have any news to tell us about this little layout? I am sure it is worth building, in one form or another.

 

- Richard.

[gazmanjack]

I agree with Richard's comment above, any news ??

 

Cheers, Gary.

[mjcampbell]

I've just come across this thread, and I think you've got a cracking plan there. Well at least you had until the last couple of iterations, where I think you are falling for the age old temptation to fit too much in - leaving insufficient space for convincing scenery, and given your history in the OP, possibly making a layout over complicated and difficult to finish. I suggest you start thinking less is more?

 

I do have a suggestion though. If you are planning an external fiddle yard, make a basic one from day 1, and forget trying to hide the main line for half the length of the layout! You don't have depth to hide it convincingly, nor use it as an effective hidden siding, so just use an over-bridge or building at the r/h end to run off-stage to a siding or two on a basic board. Remember this layout can be shunted without the fiddle yard, so if there's no space for the FY at home that's no problem! My layout was originally built in an alcove and had to be slid out to fit the fiddle yard, yet could be shunted without - at that was quite satisfying.

 

As for era and setting, I rather like Weymouth Harbour. Imagine in the '80's you have a harbour with parcels and passenger traffic to the ferry, but also some curtain-sided vans for general imports (fruit perhaps) via Speedlink, and a small oil terminal for diesel fuel for the fishing fleet and ferry. Now the passenger traffic might be DMU, and the sidings shunted by an 08 or similar, but what if the goods arrived behind a "main line" diesel, which uncouples and waits in the platform for the wagons to be removed before returning light-engine. When a train is ready to depart it returns to collect them. So no run-round required!

 

However if you want a run-round it could (now the main line is "exposed") be achieved by linking the Siding 3 into the rear main line, or running both out to the FY. Though adding a run-round reduces siding space and complicates with another point. If you did though I'd re-arrange the pointwork so the release is the rear platform road rather than the headshunt, so you don't have to clear shunting operations every time a train arrives. I'd also argue the island platform is a luxury, putting it behind the line makes more space and as the front line is a headshunt only, no catch points are needed!

 

Finally, no matter what a computer tells you, there's no substitute for full-size planning. Get a roll of wallpaper lining paper, download some PECO point plans (or use real ones if you have them), and lay it out. Get some toy trains out to check clearances, and while you're at it some boxes, biscuit tins etc., to mock-up buildings. That way you'll have a real feel of what fits and how it looks in 3D. I do think you'll need the extra depth of a 12" board to fit some basic scenery around the tracks, even so there will be little space when you allow for people and figures to move between the sidings.

 

Above all, enjoy the process, and get on with it! Better a finished layout that could have been better, than the perfect but unfinished plan...

[andyram]

As someone who has a loose plan for a quay side / coastal terminus layout, I have read this thread with interest. It is looking a promising plan and I look forward to following your progress.