Danfilm007

Me again! I've recovered from my utter brain fart on the west side of the layout so got it to all work! That looks a bit better. Been bugging me as you can tell... sorry for the overload everyone haha

14 minutes ago, simon b said:

I do think the flow of the pointwork in the second version is better, a much smoother transition. But the bay platform needs to be longer like the first. 

 

Or try a pair of bay platforms next to each other with a headshunt?

Thanks! I have tried shifting the layout to the left (left/west is towards Piccadilly now, right towards Deansgate) but the curve on the entry becomes too tight as there isn't many flexible curved point options in 00 Code 75. I have extended the bay to fit a 3 car train in like a 323 but the real location doesn't have a headshunt. I could try fitting one in but it also to me seemed a bit too much like cramming options in for the sake of it - you can always keep an idling loco in the bay?

2 hours ago, jools1959 said:

I have to agree with @Harlequin, slip crossovers are never a good idea.  I'd keep the cross over at the east end of the platforms (Towards Piccadilly) and the use a pair of curved points after.  It's a bit of a space eater but looks more realistic, and probably operationally better.

Thanks, so something like this as attached seems to be quite a good compromise? The awkward kink in the middle of the crossover could be smoothed out if it was real I reckon! 

I also did a more curved version of the station that admittedly to me seems a bit less compressed (the white platformed one), do you guys prefer that then?

1 hour ago, RobinofLoxley said:

Hasn't a lot of dead space now appeared at the bottom?

 

I think people were talking about more drastic curvature of the platforms to enable the station to be compressed into a corner. The question then is, as with moving the bay, is whether its any longer what you were choosing to model.

Yeah - I didn't feel the need to run all the way to the bottom of the available space - a couple of ft in width felt fine to me? If the boards were laid out in a curved manner, then you could run it through the middle to give the front and back more prominence at certain points? It makes sense in my head, I promise! It's not (nor ever was going to be) a 100% scale model of Oxford Road, more it was inspired by it in terms of its operational potential.

1 hour ago, Harlequin said:

It's not a good idea to use the turning route through a slip in a main running line - the radius through the Peco slips is a nominal 610mm (2ft) and so trains encounter quite a sharp turn.

 

Thanks for highlighting that, back to the drawing board then!

Thanks all! Really appreciate your advice. I've used the slip point advice so I can do turnbacks on either end of the layout now.

I've updated my plan based on your above points, all! The Yellow is the baseboards for scenery, the grey would be a moveable board/flip up for entrance and exit. Think this makes a bit more sense? 

13 minutes ago, dave75 said:

Maybe a hidden return loop under the station linking those dead end sidings in the top right, which would use your dead space and move trains from the up to the down side of the fiddle yard.

Interesting idea, thanks! I did manage to squeeze in reverse points on both sides (although the radius isn't ideal on the east side and it is code 100, not 75) but it functions at least!

5 minutes ago, ITG said:

A wider board (a) makes it easier to fit in gradual curves and (b) enhances the scenic perspective of ‘railway in the landscape’. Certainly 2ft enables easy reach.

A central operating area imho gives a better view of trains, as they do go out of your sight, giving a sense of a journey.

How will you use your storage yard? Purely to hold complete trains? Or to actually ‘fiddle’ (ie hand shuffle locos and rolling stock to dissemble /reassemble trains)? The answer may dictate where you operate from to give that close at hand access.

For me, I’d want a greater goods rolling stock interest of some kind - as it stands it looks very passenger orientated.

Thanks, I thought so! I'm sure gentle curves could be incorporated, I'm not very good at SCARM and it's my first go at it for a while. Just had some ideas so thought it would be good to do it.

For me, a fiddle yard would primarily be for storing stock. As you noticed, I'm generally more interested in passenger train running but you can run quite a lot of freight, lots does go through the Manchester running lines.

I've done one final plan for this evening - have experimented with making the bay platform as long as the others. I'm not sure if I like it much (I was thinking to make it long enough to fit a full 323, then I thought about what a loco storage siding, then... haha). 

Great photos @bhtm, thanks for that! I remember seeing the layout at the time, it was good.

Just now, Curlew said:

If you are reproducing the Oxford Road track plan you are missing a crossover at the east end.

 

Also I would recommend a rethink of the fiddle yard. The up and down sidings aren't connected in any way at the moment, so you may quickly end up with an imbalance of trains if any terminate and reverse in the station.

Yeah, I've been trying to play with the crossovers to get it to fit on the east side of the layout but the OO 75 curves and curved points make balancing it quite tricky. West side I'm happy with, east side not so much...

4 minutes ago, ITG said:

In your original drawing, looking at the scale measurements of the room, you could consider slightly wider boards (except maybe the bottom board), which in turn may give more scope to avoid the straight track appearance, and to curve some aspects.

On the new plan, that does look better, but what will you do with the triangular space behind the station? Reach and access would be tricky if you placed any track there, or indeed to make it purely scenic.

Ian

Good ideas! I like those. In the second plan, I would effectively make the boards only as wide as needed so it would only be at most 2ft wide. Means you could operate from front or back which might be a bit easier!

Thanks, I'll take a look!

In the meantime, I mocked up a 14ft by 8ft version so it is a bit longer, and straightened it out slightly to make it less "wall-y" - does it fit a bit better in your minds?

Thanks for the kind feedback, all!

One idea I had was either to start the station further up on the right to straighten it out maybe? Reduce the wall following. Will draw something up!

43 minutes ago, whart57 said:

Can you lay things out so that the tracks aren't parallel to the baseboard edge in the scenic section?

 

Also I'm not an expert on track design but which are the up and down platforms? Can a train reach them and leave from them with a minimum of point shifts, and can they do so without a single mistake putting them on the wrong line?

 

IRL the top two platforms are going TOWARDS Piccadilly and the bottom to AWAY/Going to Deansgate. The real station has reversing points on both sides and all 4 platforms are (as far I believe) all signalled bi-directionally. It is a big congestion point on the real railway so having the ability for extra running helps!

Hi all,

Got stuck down a rabbit hole of layout planning and I came up with a Manchester Oxford Road style track plan for 13ft by 8ft in 00 Gauge (so it could fit one of those big garden office things). What do you all think? I have tried to add a bit of operational interest with the turnbacks on the curves so you can accurately have reversing trains in the platforms. I did want to make the scenic element more curvy instead of so boxy, so any ideas? Equally if I could get a 14ft one going it would mean I could squeeze in 5 car trains like the 180s and maybe through running of a TfW 67 and Mk4 set.

175s in 00... uh ohhhh... I'll take a 2 car and a 3 car ATW!

I would suggest directly speaking to Warner about it, but if you don't want the emails then unsubscribe from them, as they can't keep emailing you if you opt out - their systems should prohibit it.

How long are the platforms? I guess they might only be able to take 3 car trains?

Just as I was going to start my version of Minories set in the 70s and 80s...  

I look forward to seeing progress on yours!

There goes my N Gauge layout design...

I's love to see an updated model in 00, but also wish I could have an upgraded one in N as well!

Just had confirmation on the NGF from someone who's seen the new IC DVT in the flesh today that it is indeed still in the same colours as the incorrect model released six years ago.

 

I've cancelled all my outstanding Dapol pre-orders.

 

JB

Oh dear. That's a LOT of very unhappy bunnies in this case...

Just checked - found I'm Order No 221 - hope I don't get a Super Voyager through by mistake

Loving the look of it mate!

Read through the thread from the beginning - must say I am loving every picture!

There we go, finally bit the bullet and pledged £30. Couldn't fit (or afford!) a 5 or 9 car Pendi, so decided to go for the 2 coaches. Could be fun as a short train anyway!

I'd love to live somewhere where the Petrol is that cheap...

Looks great mate!

Not a stupid question. But the method of operation bears no relationship as to whether insulfrog or electrofrog.

Alrighty, cheers!

Stupid question, is it the same principle for Wire-In-Tube poing changing?