andypops Posted January 2, 2012 Share Posted January 2, 2012 Hi all, I have almost finished my first layout (see topic here), which was originally planned to be a small TMD. This has morphed into a small wagon works / refuelling point, and I would like to create a new layout as a bolt-on with which to provide a use for the mended wagons (and a source of troublesome trucks for the works!) Being from Hereford, and basing this loosely on a tangential path of history, the type of business served will be a meat packing / processing factory, a cider mill (Bulmers), some small-scale metal processing works, a sawmill and perhaps even the Cadburys factory near leominster. Therefore the main traffic will be VDAs, OTAs and (if I can find an excuse) perhaps some steel carriers. I will swap between the business by simply changing wagons, loads and signage. I want this to fit onto a plank approximately 1600m x 500mm. The era is between 1980 and current day, depending on which stock I run. My basic idea is as follows: There is one line in (at the bottom left) with a short headshunt. My basic idea is that a mainline loco arrives in the 2nd siding with a rake of wagons, and this is then cut and propelled away by a private shunter (via the lower siding) into the building (top right) to be unloaded. The shunter will also collect "loaded" wagons, and form a rake to be tripped away by the mainline loco. Firstly, do you think I will be able to do this with this track layout? Can you think of any changes / improvements I can make to make operation a little more simple? At the moment, I am a little concerned that wagons will become "trapped" on either the top or bottom lines. All help and comments would be very appreciated All the best, Andy Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Kris Posted January 2, 2012 RMweb Premium Share Posted January 2, 2012 As draw the layout doesn't seem to work Andy. The head shunt bottom right is far to short to take more than the loco and one wagon, and maybe not even that. I would also say that there seems to be more of an American feel to the layout than a British one to my eyes. This might just be down to the use of the crossing but also the mix of different industries. (Don't get me wrong I'm not say this is a bad thing, just something to bear in mind). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
andypops Posted January 2, 2012 Author Share Posted January 2, 2012 Okay, thanks for that. Yes, I'm not completely happy with this and it's definitely a work in progress. The idea of multiple businesses just comes from the fact that these days, most factories are a seemingly anonymous style of industrial unit which can be found up and down the UK. And fair enough, the sawmill and steel processing might be going a bit far though I just don't know how to re-draw this to get it to what I want Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
andypops Posted January 2, 2012 Author Share Posted January 2, 2012 How does this look? In this layout, the loco enters from the mainline, crosses to and drops the wagons in siding 1, and moves into either of the headshunts. The shunter couples up to the rear, and propels the wagons into the loading bays. The loco can then run around loaded wagons in siding 2, couple up and be away. And the shunter can prepare a new rake! I don't think I was clear before, but the loading bays in the buiilding will be a non-descript industrial-type unit. So as for the different trades, it'll be just a sign and stock swap. Nothing major. My only problem with this layout is that it is quite track-heavy. But looks much more reliable to operate. Especially with short wheelbase shunting locos. Comments always appreciated. Andy Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
andypops Posted January 2, 2012 Author Share Posted January 2, 2012 And to make it clear - I'll be making this with peco code 75 track & points. I've only drawn it with the Hornby template on XtrackCAD because I can't find my peco parameters. I know the geometry is slightly different, but I will of course take this into account. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Kris Posted January 2, 2012 RMweb Premium Share Posted January 2, 2012 Looks much better Andy. Whilst you were doing that I came up with this. Not quite sure that it fits what you want though. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
andypops Posted January 3, 2012 Author Share Posted January 3, 2012 Thanks Kris. I can see what you're getting at with that, but I'm not sure about the three-way point, since I want to use point motors (probably cobalt or tortoise), and I wouldn't know where to begin with this! Secondly I'm not too keen on the way you've got the sidings laid, but I definitely see the advantages of it - this kind of thing would give me the scope to have two separate industries, at bottom left and top right, served by the same exchange sidings. Which is a whole new can of worms Thanks again, Andy Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave777 Posted January 3, 2012 Share Posted January 3, 2012 The generic ‘factory’ is always a good choice for a lineside industry as you can run pretty much whatever you like into it (although I’m sometimes a little dubious of layouts where hopper wagons are shunted into sidings where there’s a warehouse as I’ve no idea how they are loaded or unloaded – perhaps there is a prototype somewhere however). A wagon works is even better, as then you really can run absolutely anything into it, including passenger stock. Suggestions for improvement – try to move away from the ‘straight/parallel’ tracks look, especially when the tracks follow the lines of the baseboard edge. Even if the baseboard is square or oblong, curving the entire plan across the layout or putting it at an angle can make it look way better. Regarding this bit… Hi all, Can you think of any changes / improvements I can make to make operation a little more simple? At the moment, I am a little concerned that wagons will become 'trapped' on either the top or bottom lines. Actually, I wouldn’t be too concerned about trying to design out all the traps and problems. Something I’ve mentioned several times on here is to not design out all the operating snags from a plan because, if you think about it, you’re taking out all the interesting pieces of operation! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
andypops Posted January 3, 2012 Author Share Posted January 3, 2012 Thanks very much for that Dave. Firstly, I think the point you make about avoiding straight lines is very important, and I will be doing that! Instead of the proprietary lengths of code 100 track, I'm going to be experimenting with flexible lengths of code 75, and so I'll be able to put the odd kink in there and not have to worry about things not fitting perfectly. And secondly, when you say about not working out all the problems, you are of course completely right. It wouldn't be any fun if it was just a straight piece of track.. But I do prefer the basic layout of my second plan. I'll have a bit more of a play, I think... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rob D2 Posted January 7, 2012 Share Posted January 7, 2012 Andy, What period are you trying to portray ? It looks a tad track heavy - we all have this issue when trying to fit something interesting to operate into a small space. Ask yourself why those tracks would be there - do they have a purpose ? For instance the kick back siding at the top of the plan. I find both google earth and quails track planbooks excellent ways of researching real track plans to see if my ideas lookanything like reality Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
andypops Posted January 8, 2012 Author Share Posted January 8, 2012 Thanks Rob, I have been using these tools to look at old sidings in the area I want to portray - most useful! As I am thinking, the siding I am trying to portray is busier than the "real thing" here, so the increased infrastructure is there to do that. I obviously aim to make most of it look incredibly run down, overgrown etc. The period I want to show is 1990s-modern day. All diesel traction. The kickbback at the top is purely to make operation easier. As I had envisioned, I would be using a lone shunter to move wagons from the reception siding (1) to the industrial unit, then reassemby of a train in siding 2 The mainline loco will sit in the headshunt of either siding, before running round back to the head of the rake in siding 2. If I have the kickback, the option is that the shunter can take a cut of the last few unloaded wagons from siding 1 and sit in the kickback, whist the mainline loco collects the last van from the shed, couples the wagons in the departure siding, and leaves. All part of the shunting fun I understand completely about what you are saying about making the trackplan too busy. But below is my next itteration of the layout - and I think there's substantially more track there! But, it does look much nicer to my eyes... How does this look now? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rob D2 Posted January 8, 2012 Share Posted January 8, 2012 Ah OK, I get it. Have you thought about modelling the end of the run round on your board, but leaving the other end off scene ? That way you could move everything to the left, allowing more space for your industrial unit and , hence, more track length for your delivery sidings in your ware house ? The reason i say this is, modern stock, as you probably know is very long. I think my Heljan cargowaggon is knocking on for 30 cm.Hence you will only just about get one of those in your building and probably not at all on the top siding. this would not be so bad if you are only running 2 axle wagons not modern monsters. Personally I would bin the top siding and kick back, and replace it with a road into the warehouse next to the track, as quite often these distribution type places have that facility to cross ship steel etc to road. But remember at the end of the day it's your model, and what gives you enjoyment.. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shadow Posted January 8, 2012 Share Posted January 8, 2012 Think that there's to much going on. Too much track, How about something like this.. Not straight or parallel to the edges, some nice curves!! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
andypops Posted January 17, 2012 Author Share Posted January 17, 2012 This is my new, much revised plan. The area depicted is a heavily rationalised exchange siding, which had originally been used for the exchange of small mixed goods trains for various local industries. This tallies with my original plan, and fits in nicely with what actually happened locally (although on a bit bigger scale!). Trains were originally dropped off here, cut by a shunter and tripped off on single lines to various industries. Over time, these industries have died off (along with their connections to the sidings), and the once busy exchange is now forlorn, with only a few trains per day. Because of this, the trains are shorter (saves on space...!). Rakes are still dropped-off and assembled here for collection, but to only a few places, so I think it should all fit in nicely. The entrance is a single line on the left hand side. This leads past a shunter stabling point to the exchange sidings. A line to a distant industry (top, LH side) has been truncated, and a modern industrial unit has sprung up on the old trackbed. This retains the connection, with goods brought in by rail. To the upper-right, another old line has been truncated and kept on as a road-trail cross-shipping point. This commonly happened in the area I'm depicting, with wood and steel both unloaded and tripped to the local businesses, right up until the late 90s / early 00's. I think I only need 1 headshunt - I can't see a big benefit from having 2, other than the additional costs of pointwork and motors! To the lower right hand side, another disused but as-yet unlifted line leads away, and will provide a nice eye-level vantage point to look along, from which to view the scene. Plus, it gives me somewhere to perhaps have a PW gang working away, for interest! And to reitterate my previous posts, I intend to use Peco code 75 throughout (with medium radius points, except for the Y-point which will be short. The era is late 90s-modern day, and based on Hereford yard. I have only drawn it with Hornby parts because I've lost my peco parameter files for Xtrack, and I know the dimensions are slightly different. Signalling will be using colour lights, and non-moving ground signal disks. Points will be motorised. Thank you for reading all of this! One final question - would the "modern industrial unit" branch require a catch point. Likewise, is one required between the sidings and the mainline? All the best, Andy Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rob D2 Posted January 27, 2012 Share Posted January 27, 2012 I don't think it would andy, as it's not a connection onto a running line merely a yard. They would probably have one of those "stop- await instructions " signs off scene before the start of your yard Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
andypops Posted February 5, 2012 Author Share Posted February 5, 2012 Hi, Just a quick note to say that I've got a layout thread going now, here. I look forward to any input! All the best, Andy Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
shortliner Posted February 9, 2012 Share Posted February 9, 2012 Andy, possibly too late, but take a look at http://www.carendt.us/microplans/index.html click on "linked Index" on the left and see Pine Ridge and Pine Ridge II, either of which may adapt Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
andypops Posted February 12, 2012 Author Share Posted February 12, 2012 Hi shortliner, thanks very much. That is a gem of a website. All the best, Andy Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.