Kiran Posted May 14, 2015 Share Posted May 14, 2015 Hey all! I've recently got back into my model railway hobby, and naturally I want to complete my first layout. Most of the baseboards are already built, apart from one. The baseboard dimensions are as follows (from left to right in the attached diagram): 240cm x 150cm (Not built) 152 * 65 (3 of these) 79 * 198cm I am now in the process of figuring out a suitable track layout to place on these baseboards. My only requirements are to have a continuous loop and at least one decently sized station (for ~4/5 carriage DMUs). The era I am aiming for is post-privatisation with no particular region in mind. Attached is my initial attempt. However I am not satisfied with it - something seems off, and I'm not sure about the shunting area to the right of the station. I have not yet filled in the blank where the unbuilt baseboard is, however I will probably have some sort of loop / fiddle yard there. The grey area near the back after the red line is inclined, at a height of around 8cm. Any thoughts? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Chimer Posted May 14, 2015 RMweb Premium Share Posted May 14, 2015 Some quick thoughts to start the debate - these are all operational (playing trains!) issues rather than worrying about whether the track layout is strictly prototypical (others will do that no doubt). Remembering trains on the inner circuit will be going anti-clockwise: You can't shunt the sidings to the right of the station: coming off the inner circuit, the train engine will be trapped against the buffers, and you can't trail in from the outer circuit. You could create a run-round by linking the top platform road to the track above it. You can only access the central non-platform road through the station from the inner circuit. Using 3 points at each end to simply turn 2 tracks into 3 would give much more flexibility. There is no route from the terminal platform to the outer circuit, which is where a departing train needs to go. You need a trailing crossover to the left of the platform tracks. The schematic below would solve those 3 issues (I've used Code 100 Streamline 'cos that's what my X-trackcad is set up for). Hope this helps ...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kiran Posted May 15, 2015 Author Share Posted May 15, 2015 Hi, Thanks for your quick reply! I agree with your first point, but I'm a little confused about your second and third points. You access the non platform center line from either circuit through the Y points that are on either side (which can be simplified to match your diagram however which I think I will do). It is also possible to get to the outer circuit from the terminal platform through of these points too. Please could you clarify? Kiran Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Chimer Posted May 16, 2015 RMweb Premium Share Posted May 16, 2015 It must be my eyes! The track diagram on your OP comes out very faint and I can't see any links from the outer circuit to the centre line other than the crossover at the right hand end of the platform. For sure, three Ys at each end answers my points 2 & 3 (but I think make the other crossovers redundant). Sorry for any confusion! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kiran Posted May 18, 2015 Author Share Posted May 18, 2015 Excellent, thanks! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kiran Posted May 18, 2015 Author Share Posted May 18, 2015 I have taken in the feedback above, and also redesigned my layout a little to try and use more of the space. The 3rd platform is no longer terminal, and the line behind the station is no longer elevated. The primary purpose of the lines within the loop are now for coach sidings and also a small tmd. My main concern at this point is that it might be a little dull to operate since there's seemingly not a lot to do, but I can't think how I can cram any other features in. Thoughts and comments are appreciated from anybody, even if it's to tell me it's rubbish (before I commit to buying the track). If anybody finds the full image too faint still, let me know and I'll see what I can do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Chimer Posted May 18, 2015 RMweb Premium Share Posted May 18, 2015 I liked the original idea of the elevated line behind the station, say up on top of a set of arches and clearly a different bit of the railway. So I would just take the fan of sidings off a y point at the right hand end of the top platform road and do away with the double junction. if you were going for an earlier era, I might also play around with the idea of a nicely spread out goods yard on the left hand board, with trailing access from the top platform road which would double as the yard headshunt, noting you'll need an emergency access manhole towards the left hand side so you can reach into the back corner if necessary. In steam days you might have one siding for a goods shed, one for coal traffic and one for cattle, plus a long road for the train being shunted, but I suppose this wouldn't work with present day freight operations (which are dead boring imho!) Someone might be able to suggest a present day scenario for that area which would involve a bit of shunting to keep you amused while trains circulate on the main lines. With something on that board, you would probably have enough siding space not to need a fiddle yard, maybe just a couple of loops on the left hand board to hold complete trains out of sight (or at least out of mind) for a while. Can I also suggest that if you buy in all this track in one go its going to be a big financial and time commitment .... you might like to try fiddling about with something smaller and temporary in the first instance while you sort out your techniques and discover what you like about the hobby and what you don't? Cheers Chris P.S. The track plan's now fine even for my old eyes! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jon_1066 Posted May 18, 2015 Share Posted May 18, 2015 You have two main practical problems: There is streamline track spacing but set track curves - you will get clashing of overhanging stock on the curves You will need to be Mr Tickle to reach the back of the five foot board You have a very awkward shape that doesn't really suit a continuous run layout. You also have nowhere to store any stock. If we take a four car DMU as the longest train you want to run that would give about 1200 mm for the train. If you went to a cassette system for storing these you could have your cassettes on the right hand side, curve round through the station on the main length then onto the continuous run on the left hand side. Once they have gone around there a few times they can come back through the station and back to a cassette. You could fit in a depot to give storage on the layout. An access hole in the large board will allow you to reach the back on the left hand side. eg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DCB Posted May 19, 2015 Share Posted May 19, 2015 I have taken in the feedback above, and also redesigned my layout a little to try and use more of the space. The 3rd platform is no longer terminal, and the line behind the station is no longer elevated. The primary purpose of the lines within the loop are now for coach sidings and also a small tmd. ly2.jpg My main concern at this point is that it might be a little dull to operate since there's seemingly not a lot to do, but I can't think how I can cram any other features in. Thoughts and comments are appreciated from anybody, even if it's to tell me it's rubbish (before I commit to buying the track). If anybody finds the full image too faint still, let me know and I'll see what I can do. I think you are getting near to a workable layout, but I would lay sidings on the left hand board and hide the tracks at the rear maybe having 4 tracks sub divided to take 3 trains each posiblybehind just a retaining wall as a scenic break, I would also keep the sidings on the right hand board but feed them from the back platform with a scenic break behind. Jon 1066 is right and wrong about set track spacing and geometry it started with 12" curves and 15" radius and 64 foot coaches and Pacifics so really streamline spacing is OK for set track like radii as long as you avoid scale 75 foot coaches and Pacifis meeting. In many ways Jon 1066 layout proposal is the worst of both worlds having remarkably little operational capability for such a large layout, though to be honest modern image does mean little operational interest compared to 1948-68 which it self has little operating interest compared to pre 1939 with Private owner wagons to be returned to their owners, through coaches.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kiran Posted May 19, 2015 Author Share Posted May 19, 2015 Thank you all for your replies. noting you'll need an emergency access manhole towards the left hand side so you can reach into the back corner if necessary. You will need to be Mr Tickle to reach the back of the five foot board This is a good point which I hadn't thought of. I think there is a small amount of space to the left of the baseboard which might solve the issue. An emergency manhole might be problematic since the baseboard are quite low (space limitations) and I won't be able to crawl under the baseboard. eg This is an interesting plan, though I'm inclined to agree with DavidCBroad. I think in this case the loop doesn't really add anything since it's so small, so if I went down this route I would probably have an end to end layout with no loop. I definitely agree that the baseboards are awkward to fit a loop onto though, and there's definitely a lack of storage. Can I also suggest that if you buy in all this track in one go its going to be a big financial and time commitment .... you might like to try fiddling about with something smaller and temporary in the first instance while you sort out your techniques and discover what you like about the hobby and what you don't? I agree, though I have a few months break from University soon which would be ideal to set this sort of thing up. I've been meddling around with model railways for some time (including being part of a model rail club a few years back), but this will be my first permanent layout. So I would just take the fan of sidings off a y point at the right hand end of the top platform road and do away with the double junction. I think you are getting near to a workable layout, but I would lay sidings on the left hand board and hide the tracks at the rear maybe having 4 tracks sub divided to take 3 trains each posiblybehind just a retaining wall as a scenic break, I would also keep the sidings on the right hand board but feed them from the back platform with a scenic break behind. These sound interesting, I think I will have a play about with the current layout plan to incorporate these suggestions! Again thanks for the replies! If anybody has anything else to add, please do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jon_1066 Posted May 19, 2015 Share Posted May 19, 2015 Why not go with an end to end? You space is screaming out to do this. Your final board doesn't have to be so deep then. You could then have a more traditional fiddleyard to terminus set up - an expanded minories for instance would work perfectly with a TMD or depot on the run. Loads more operations, plenty of scope for scenics, much more traditional but most importantly workable and achievable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Chimer Posted May 19, 2015 RMweb Premium Share Posted May 19, 2015 Why not go with an end to end? You space is screaming out to do this. Your final board doesn't have to be so deep then. You could then have a more traditional fiddleyard to terminus set up - an expanded minories for instance would work perfectly with a TMD or depot on the run. Loads more operations, plenty of scope for scenics, much more traditional but most importantly workable and achievable. Well ..... nothing wrong with the OP changing his mind but unless and until, perhaps our advice should conform to the latest stated specification ..... (snip) My only requirements are to have a continuous loop and at least one decently sized station (for ~4/5 carriage DMUs). (snip) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jon_1066 Posted May 19, 2015 Share Posted May 19, 2015 The problem is a continuous run is virtually unbuildable in the space given. Most people can't reach the four feet that would be required to build it. Duck under is not an option so where does that leave both ends? He might get access at one end but what about the other corner? Trying to cram a continuous run into the space will kill it in my opinion. If something has to give then that should be the thing to go. So he could build a model railway that is satisfying to build, great to look at and fun to operate or he could build one that is awkward to build, seriously compromised to look at and ultimately boring to operate. Ultimately you have to accept the limitation imposed upon you by the space you have available. Better to do this before shelling out the cash (and time) on a half built railway. I suppose the question then becomes what is in the rest of the room and could a different layout of baseboards be fitted in? You could solve all your problems by going around all four walls. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Chimer Posted May 19, 2015 RMweb Premium Share Posted May 19, 2015 True, true, it's just that I'm following a number of threads where conflicting helpful advice seems to result in repeated rip up and start again syndrome ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kiran Posted May 22, 2015 Author Share Posted May 22, 2015 Thanks for the replies, and sorry for this late one. Whilst I realise the space is awkward to work with (and the bends are fairly tight), I'm fairly keen on have a continuous loop in. Unless my layout was a little longer (which given the constraints of the room cannot be done) I don't think I'd get much joy in running some of my existing rolling stock from point to point. However, clearly I need to think more about this - possibly there are some existing plans for end to end layouts which I could use for inspiration which might change my mind. About the arrangement of baseboards, I'm going to think about this one. I can't go around 4 walls, there's several important doors in the way. The entire room is not for my use either (it's a converted attic.) But I think there might be a few things I can do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jon_1066 Posted May 22, 2015 Share Posted May 22, 2015 I guess it comes down to how you see operating potential. A continuous run gives you one thing - the ability to set a train running, sit back and watch it do it's thing. To see a train running at full(ish) speed through a landscape you have created. Almost everything else can be done with an end to end. Operations as far as I am concerned are trains travelling for a purpose. eg running to some kind of sequence or timetable. Passenger arrivals and departures, perhaps goods trains or engineering trains or light engine moves. Things moving for a reason. To do this you need to have a storage area so trains can come from somewhere and go to somewhere. The more trains you can store in this area the more variety you can have. This is why cassettes are so good - storage capacity is dictated by the three dimensional area you can store the cassettes rather than the two dimensions of the layout. Next you need destinations or origins for trains on the layout. A terminus station is ideal for this. Trains are going to somewhere and coming from that same location. Trains have multiple routes to take into the terminus, perhaps with simultaneous arrivals and departures. Slow speeds should allow you to achieve that with only one controller. If you imagine your terminus serves a couple of train operators to different destinations you can then work out a sequence of arrivals and departures to satisfy your imagined services. Your roll as the operator becomes multi faceted. You are the planner setting the sequence of moves, the signaller setting the points and signals and finally the driver setting the train speeds. With your space a depot or TMD or carriage storage would easily fit in increasing the operations considerably. Eg a network rail depot would give you shunting to make up engineering trains. You would also have to fit their arrivals and departures into your sequencing. It would also give you more variety of rolling stock and locomotives. If you didn't want to run to that expense then DMU storage and servicing would fit in with cleaning and fuelling for DMUs without any increase in rolling stock. You have enough baseboards to set up a temporary layout to experiment. Why not try out a terminus end to end layout just pinned down loosely to see if you enjoy operating it? Any points and track could be re-incorporated into a continuous run later. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DCB Posted May 22, 2015 Share Posted May 22, 2015 A continuous run can provide lots of operating interest, it is just a lack of imagination and or knowledge of prototype operation which stops operators of continuous run layouts, especially exhibition operators having some fun. Cheltenham St James is a two platform station with one crossover and two carriage sidings yet it sees all the Birrmingham - Bristol services and turns back the Paddington services with the HST waiting in the sidings between trips. Go back 60 years and you would find Manors or Southern Moguls on Southampton trains terminating and departing from the same two platforms and storing the stock on the same carriage sidings. Taking Kiran's 18th May layout I would move the platforms to the S bend at the left hand end of the layout and have loops accessing the sidings currently accessed from the tracks at the back. Then with a scenic break he could have four tracks with crossovers at the back for storage and run quite an intensive service out and back, or just let trains circulate, which is exactly what I do, when operating sensibly trains only ever do one circuit but other times when doing maintenance etc I just let trains rumble round. Conversely Termini can be quite exciting if like Swansea High St, Fort William, or Bath Green Park they principally served through trains where the incoming stock had a fresh loco attached to the rear , or the HST or Sprinter simply reversed and departed again diverging at a junction a short distance down the line. What modelers myself included too often do is have big stations with lots of platforms and loops which become highly visible storage sidings with trains stopping for unlikely lengths of time, sometimes for a coal train to overtake an express Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kiran Posted May 23, 2015 Author Share Posted May 23, 2015 Point taken. Taking Kiran's 18th May layout I would move the platforms to the S bend at the left hand end of the layout and have loops accessing the sidings currently accessed from the tracks at the back. Then with a scenic break he could have four tracks with crossovers at the back for storage I like this idea. I will experiment with moving the platforms onto the S bend. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gismorail Posted May 23, 2015 Share Posted May 23, 2015 Just a quick question and not wanting to disrupt the thread but how do you get these nice computer track diagrams on here . Is it a programme I'm missing Thanks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kiran Posted May 23, 2015 Author Share Posted May 23, 2015 Just a quick question and not wanting to disrupt the thread but how do you get these nice computer track diagrams on here . Is it a programme I'm missing Thanks I use SCARM Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Danemouth Posted May 24, 2015 Share Posted May 24, 2015 Or AnyRail trial version - just stay below 50 pieces https://www.anyrail.com/index_en.html Dave Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium kevinlms Posted May 24, 2015 RMweb Premium Share Posted May 24, 2015 Point taken. Well yes it has been taken! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kiran Posted May 27, 2015 Author Share Posted May 27, 2015 Just to keep people updated, here is my latest progress. It's still not finished, and for now I have stuck with a continuous layout (though I am still pondering about an end to end layout). I have taken David's suggestion to move the platform to the S bend, and having some sidings at the back for storage. I have also made the curves much gentler, and the part in the center is a TMD/stabling area. Issues still include track spacing for some curves, and the fact that I am not yet Mr Tickle. However, I could possibly cut the board diagonally below the station which would allow me to reach further back. Plan: 3D Views: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Chimer Posted May 27, 2015 RMweb Premium Share Posted May 27, 2015 You really do need to sort out emergency access to the back left corner, especially now you've got all those points there behind a backscene. I was going to suggest a manhole, then saw you've already said you can't get under the board ........... tricky! Your fiddle yard loops all come off the inner circuit, so are not accessible to trains running clockwise. If you could fit in a facing crossover to the left of the loops, that would increase flexibility. And I would have the trailing crossover that lets you get trains from the fiddle yard loops onto the outer clockwise circuit as part of the hidden section. Taken together these changes would mean you moving the tunnel mouths behind the MPD about three feet right, but I think it would be worth it for the operational gains. If it was me, I'd try to design things so the MPD and sidings area is accessed from somewhere near the station, rather than the back lines. I think this would tie things together better. Finally (!) the long lay-by siding centre front would be more prototypically accessed by reversing in from the left rather than heading in loco first from the right. Trying to be helpful - sorry! Chris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kiran Posted May 27, 2015 Author Share Posted May 27, 2015 You really do need to sort out emergency access to the back left corner, especially now you've got all those points there behind a backscene. I was going to suggest a manhole, then saw you've already said you can't get under the board ........... tricky! Your fiddle yard loops all come off the inner circuit, so are not accessible to trains running clockwise. If you could fit in a facing crossover to the left of the loops, that would increase flexibility. And I would have the trailing crossover that lets you get trains from the fiddle yard loops onto the outer clockwise circuit as part of the hidden section. Taken together these changes would mean you moving the tunnel mouths behind the MPD about three feet right, but I think it would be worth it for the operational gains. If it was me, I'd try to design things so the MPD and sidings area is accessed from somewhere near the station, rather than the back lines. I think this would tie things together better. Finally (!) the long lay-by siding centre front would be more prototypically accessed by reversing in from the left rather than heading in loco first from the right. Trying to be helpful - sorry! Chris Thanks for the reply. You are definitely being helpful, so no need to be sorry! Is this better? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.