Your Layout Track Plan Mistakes

[Xerces Fobe2]

After reading and contributing to the thread on copying other peoples track plans it got me thinking how many of us have layout track plans that we were happy with we were designing them however when built you discovered that they had operational challenges? Have you any plans to mitigate/resolve these issues?

 

I will kick off with my Croxley Wiggenhall Road Depot Layout.

 

I have 2 operational issues -

• Too many points in a small area and very near the join between baseboards – all stock has to have 8 wheel pick-ups , increase in derailments/stalls
  
• One of the fiddle yard sidings can only serve one line directly on the layout which causes operational issues when I am running a lot of stock and running an EMU from the station to the depot via the fiddle yard,
  

The latter issue will be resolved with planned extension to the layout which will provide a new fiddle yard with more roads and an additional crossover

The issue of the point work will have to wait until Croxley Wiggenhall Road 2 is built which may be some time in the future!

 

 

Xerces Fobe

[David C]

On my BLT (basically a loop and two main sidings in a scenic area 8' x 2'), I wish I had at least one more siding in the goods yard and a longer loop. Without virtually destroying most of the layout, there's not much I can do about it, although I do have a vague plan to add another baseboard with a carriage siding, which would alleviate some of the shortage of siding space. The problem with this is that I then wouldn't be able to get all the baseboards in the car to take the layout to exhibitions!

 

David C

[beast66606]

Without being big headed I have never (since my youth) built a layout with mistakes simply because I spend hours - and I mean many, many of them - planning, checking the fiddle yard does what it needs (within any space restrictions) and checking the main plan works - the old "measure twice, cut once" has its equivalent in planning "Plan twice, build once" - and discussing it with the team of builders (if there is one).

 

One of the biggest mistake people make is not thinking about the fiddle yard, it frequently needs to be a lot more than just a set of loops.

 

As the layouts (currently) were designed for vans, serious space constraints were not a major problem - the current plan of mine may make that more of an issue if I decide to make it exhibitable.

[Black Sheep]

on paper my layout is fine except for the canal bridge. being seriously fed up of flat layouts that I built as a kid I'd always wanted a viaduct of some sort, this puts a set of crossovers just into the tunnel mouth (not too un-prototypical) the desire for a canal / rail interchange however resulted in a steep slope that can only be worked using an 0-6-0 or shorter, being a steam N gauge layout there are no 0-4-0 locos, so the only thing that can work it is my jinty.

 

thankfully I did realise it was too steep as it was planned and so re-configured it before the build.

[Judge Dread]

It is said that you attend a model railway exhibition to steal other people's ideas. I certainly have but whereas good ideas go on file for future reference, bad ones also are noted. I agree wholeheartedly with the Beast when he said, many hours are spent planning. They can never be wasted. The plans I have seen using Peco points, for example, on a cigarette packet. When the points where purchased and laid out on the baseboards, they mysteriously occupied a much greater area. That problem was solved at first by "brass rubbing" points and secondly when Peco introduced their downloadable plans.

[Kenton]

Most of them ...isn't that why we never get them finished or yearn to start a new one as soon as the first loco is run through that set of points?

• Too many points in a small area and very near the join between baseboards
  

 

So often the reason and will we ever learn, as much as we remember to preach to others of the peril?

[devondynosoar118]

Gordon of Eastwood Town fame must have lots of examples, many evolutions of which are in his excellent thread!

This is one reason why prototypes are a good starting point, if it didn't work for real, it didn't get built or was changed when operations changed.

[Karhedron]

On my BLT (basically a loop and two main sidings in a scenic area 8' x 2'), I wish I had at least one more siding in the goods yard and a longer loop. Without virtually destroying most of the layout, there's not much I can do about it, although I do have a vague plan to add another baseboard with a carriage siding, which would alleviate some of the shortage of siding space. The problem with this is that I then wouldn't be able to get all the baseboards in the car to take the layout to exhibitions!

Ironically I have exactly the same issue with my 4'x1' N gauge layout. On paper it looked like the loop was long enough for a 3-coach train but when everything was actuallt in place I found he longest I could manage was 2 coaches. Any longer and the loco would clip the coaches it was trying to run around.

 

I also did not leave enough room for the goods yard and I had to lose a siding. Keeping it in would have meant there was no room for anything to be unloaded from the wagons on those sidings.

 

Ironically it did not have to be that way. I used up some of the width of the layout on a dairy opposite the platform. With a bit more planning, I could have had the dairy on a kickback siding and used a section of the board which is just a field at the moment. It would have made better use of the space and made a bit more room for the goods.

 

Ah well, we live and learn.

[rodshaw]

After building my first layout (3mm scale on a 5ft by 3ft board) I decided that 11 sets of points wasn't enough so I bought some more track and points and ended up with over 20 sets of points in the same space, including several curved ones and a double slip. Added to which, the points were from three different suppliers. It was truly awful. Needless to say, it didn't last long.

[Andrew P]

I have a sheet of A4 paper with a one inch square grid drawn in ink on it, I lay this under another clean sheet and draw the baseboard and then start planning, I too will draw lots and lots of plans and always re work the best to try and get it even better, but as a rule of thum I always allow one foot for a med radius Peco point even though they are only about 8 inches and this always help get the room I need for run rounds and sidings. Re draw, Re draw and Re draw, it will pay in the end and dont be afraid to still play with track and points on the board. Also I always use a layout for about a Month before ballasting, it is easier to change things that way. One final point is that the bigger the fiddle yard the less frustrated you will get when running.

[Physicsman]

Good advice from Andy. Unfortunately, when I planned my first "biggie" around 10 years ago, I didn't think it through.

 

Facing points: 3 sets of them.

A miniscule, virtually non-existent fiddle yard (I didn't understand why FYs were so important then).

Too large a gradient from one level to another. My diesels could manage it but steamers, forget it!

Lack of operational interest: goods area way too small.

 

Overall, I learned a lot. But the new layout is the result of over a year of planning. As Andy said - redraw, redraw, redraw!

 

Jeff

[Andrew P]

Good advice from Andy. Unfortunately, when I planned my first "biggie" around 10 years ago, I didn't think it through.

 

Facing points: 3 sets of them.

A miniscule, virtually non-existent fiddle yard (I didn't understand why FYs were so important then).

Too large a gradient from one level to another. My diesels could manage it but steamers, forget it!

Lack of operational interest: goods area way too small.

 

Overall, I learned a lot. But the new layout is the result of over a year of planning. As Andy said - redraw, redraw, redraw!

 

Jeff

Jeffs right about facing points and graidents, and about goods yards too. opperation is the biggie you may not want to shunt trains now but think ahead and plan plan plan just as Jeff has done.

[The Stationmaster]

I missed out a double slip on one layout plan I did - fortunately the PerWay Design Engineer noticed and checked with me and included it before costing the job (yes, it was in 12":1ft scale). Mind you another Per way drawing office character put a facing point in my plan in the wrong place somewhat upsetting my original layout plan. Odd coincidence but my worst error in a somewhat smaller scale also involved a slip - putting in a single one instead of a double.

[gordon s]

Gordon of Eastwood Town fame must have lots of examples, many evolutions of which are in his excellent thread!

This is one reason why prototypes are a good starting point, if it didn't work for real, it didn't get built or was changed when operations changed.

 

I'm not sure if this is a complement or not.....

 

Yes, you're right, I have completed dozens of plans of one description or another. First common mistake is totally underestimating how much space a basic crossover takes. One you start laying down minimum radii then most fag packet sketches prove impossible to build. There was a track plan book out a few years back that was full of complex plans, most of which couldn't be built for exactly that reason.

 

Thankfully Templot has made the art of generating very accurate plans relatively straightforward, but it is still two dimensional and that is where my problems began. Once you introduce multiple levels and gradients, no amount of two dimensional planning can take care of every eventuality. Clearances for wiring and point motors, accessibility to hidden areas and excessive depth to boards so that key elements are out of reach are very difficult to visualise accurately and that's where I've come unstuck with two dimensional planning.

 

On the plus side, I treat it as a learning curve and good experience rather than a failure and it is the thought that the next layout will be better than the last that keeps me coming back for more.

[BG John]

Thankfully Templot has made the art of generating very accurate plans relatively straightforward, but it is still two dimensional and that is where my problems began. Once you introduce multiple levels and gradients, no amount of two dimensional planning can take care of every eventuality. Clearances for wiring and point motors, accessibility to hidden areas and excessive depth to boards so that key elements are out of reach are very difficult to visualise accurately and that's where I've come unstuck with two dimensional planning.

But you can print it out full size and build a mock up, then tweak, redesign or scrap it before it's too late. I've gone off my new layout that I posted the other day already, and am designing something else, with no harm done.

[Richard Lee]

I started my first layout earlier this year, an 8' by 18" branch-line terminus to fiddle yard in OO gauge. The main mistakes I made were:-

 

1) The loco release is a bit small. (I had intended using just Terriers for motive power, but later decided that I also liked M7s and that the layout could be set a little further west.)

 

2) The board would have been better if it were 10' long because I could have used longer points, and had a bit more room for scenery.

 

3) I used Hornby track. I believe that Peco Streamline code 75 would have been within my capabilities. It would have looked a bit better, and given me the benefit of using electro-frog points.

[Jellicoe]

I once spent weeks planning a layout only to find that it was 12" longer than it should have been. When I decide on a track plan, I will replicate it in the Trainz railway simulator and operate it for a while just to see that there is adequate siding space and plenty of operational interest (OK, play value, then).

[Southernboy]

Similar to beast66606, I think the trick is to plan, plan, plan until you have exhausted all possibilities.

 

Although my layout is quite simple in terms of track plan, I still went through over 50 variations before I arrived at something I was happy with.

 

But a slight tangent here - although I hope not entirely unrelated ....

 

What I've come to think is that layout planning is more than just about track.

 

I believe that track planning shouldn't be done in isolation: Topology should be an equal consideration if you want your trains to run through a reasonably convincing landscape. I think it's best to plan the two alongside one another.

 

Similarly (and these are what I consider my own planning oversights) - My first mistake was not putting enough thought into wiring and the control panel. They were later add-ons and could have been done better. And although I had considered signalling at the planning stage, I thought I could just plonk signals in later, but now realise it's not as straightforward as that. Ditto a number of other features such as point rodding and so on.

 

So the moral of the story for me is that with a future layout, take everything into consideration from the outset, not just the track.

[Brian D]

I was caught out by advances in rtr locos on my layout. I incorporated platform end isolation rail joint locations short of the buffer stops to provide an isolated length of track for the newly arrived loco, as you do. These isolated track lengths proved to be too short when I first placed a Hornby Brit on the layout. This loco has tender pickups and the tender straddled the isolating rail joint, although long diesels (eg Peaks) are just the right length for the isolated length of track. All part of the learning curve

Regards,

Brian.

[southern42]

• Too many points in a small area and very near the join between baseboards
  

Xerces Fobe

 

 

Of my first layout, a GWR shed, I have plans on the back of envelopes, plans in the notebook I carry around with me, plans on A4 on my pendrive, and plans in AnyRail. I've also played around with Peco medium point paper cutouts on the carpet joined up with some spare track and a few rulers (long and short) as track substitute.

 

And, just as I draw up a plan that I think might work on an 8ft x 2ft (scenic) board, I discover that 4 of my (too many?) points line up slap bang on the mid point - along the join between the two baseboard sections. Some tweaking/rethinking to do, I think. The baseboard should be ready quite soon ....but, secretly, I'm dreading the mistakes it will show up when I start mapping out the track.

But, on the positive side, I'm looking forward to laying down some track and getting some locos and branchline trains moving.

 

Well, in the first instance, it'll be pushing loco-length cards up and down. Anyway, I'll be following this thread with vested interest. Keep those comments coming.

[Jamiel]

To echo what Physicsman and Andrew P said, learn about and then avoid facing points.

 

Had I put in the points at position 2 on the plan not facing, it would have allowed platforms 4, and especially platform 5 to be used with trains releasing to the North end (tunnel) of the main line.

 

This really came to light when I started to work out the signalling, so perhaps one way to avoid such mistakes is to not only plan your tracks, consider the movements you want to make, but also plan the signals. The addition of the points at postion 1 also came to light when planning the signalling, but that is an easy change to make as thet track has not yet been fully laid.

 

I changed from planning to use light signals, which are a lot more forgiving, to semaphores, which are not, so perhaps, plan the track, plan the moments, plan the signals, and if you are using lights, plan the signals for semaphores (as many locations real or imaginary that are being modelled would have been laid before the days of light signals - I presume). This echoes what Souternboy said.

[The Stationmaster]

This really came to light when I started to work out the signalling, so perhaps one way to avoid such mistakes is to not only plan your tracks, consider the movements you want to make, but also plan the signals. The addition of the points at postion 1 also came to light when planning the signalling, but that is an easy change to make as thet track has not yet been fully laid.

 

I think it is essential to plan in (or at the very least carefully think about) the signalling as you plan your track layout. As has been shown by planning in the signalling you can start to reveal how you are getting 'impossibilities' developing into your track layout and adding the signals will also show how things are diverging from a prototypical appearance - assuming that was what you were after in the first place.

 

Southern42's advice is also very sound - the more you sketch and draw things the better your planning should become. To this I would add the studying of prototype layout plans, drawings and photos whenever you can in order to soak up the way track layouts were developed and how they worked. One side effect of this is that you start to see the difference between railway and model railway track layouts and can start to choose how you want to go in the future - will you follow prototype ideas or will you stick with model railway layouts? If you follow this sort of approach I suspect that by absorbing what the real thing did (in your chosen era) you will gradually develop a knack of reproducing it almost without having to think about it.

[Physicsman]

I think it is essential to plan in (or at the very least carefully think about) the signalling as you plan your track layout. As has been shown by planning in the signalling you can start to reveal how you are getting 'impossibilities' developing into your track layout and adding the signals will also show how things are diverging from a prototypical appearance - assuming that was what you were after in the first place.

 

Southern42's advice is also very sound - the more you sketch and draw things the better your planning should become. To this I would add the studying of prototype layout plans, drawings and photos whenever you can in order to soak up the way track layouts were developed and how they worked. One side effect of this is that you start to see the difference between railway and model railway track layouts and can start to choose how you want to go in the future - will you follow prototype ideas or will you stick with model railway layouts? If you follow this sort of approach I suspect that by absorbing what the real thing did (in your chosen era) you will gradually develop a knack of reproducing it almost without having to think about it.

 

This is something that I've learned from my interactions with the many people, far more knowledgeable than myself, on this Forum. I would advise anyone who is planning a layout to post a plan, in order to receive constructive advice from fellow members. I've done this on numerous occasions and been guided into more prototypical working as a result.

 

So - any "lurkers" out there...sign up and post your ideas. I've found (at least to date!!) that experts like Mike (Stationmaster) don't bite!

 

Jeff

[devondynosoar118]

Gordon, intended as a complement to the skill, dedication and ingenuity we have all enjoyed in the planning and building of your magnum opus.

In response to the above posts the more I learn about the real railway the more I wish to replicate it in miniature. In some ways inventing your own track layout, even if it is "inspired by" a real place is much harder as you have to overcome all the difficulties that had been mostly solved on a prototype plan.

[Torr Giffard LSWR 1951-71]

Mornin' all,

 

At risk of repeating some points already made, most prototype track layouts were modified/reduced or added to at some point during their operational life because the demands upon them changed over time e.g. increasing or declining traffic, change of traffic type etc. Challenging operational situations are an everyday occurrence on the national network and it often leads to more interesting train movements than might have been the case if all track layouts/locations could cope with all situations easily.

 

Cheers

 

Dave