Harlequin

I really wanted to avoid the major inbound route having to turn in a Peco slip, which looks too abrupt to my eye. I would say that this idea is more flowing and actually slightly more compact (in length) than SEMk1. The reverse curve routes flow quite nicely and the diamond crossing puts some distance between the direction changes - not a full coach length admittedly, but it helps.

Here's another idea. I tried to get both crossovers on stage, in as compact a form as possible and with smooth routes for the main incoming and outgoing tracks. So I tried a scissors crossing, using angles to spread the tracks apart and bring them back together at the normal Peco Streamline spacing either side. I added a kick back siding to make shunting more challenging. It could be serving some private industry or maybe a big livestock shed. (Technically, there should be a catch point between the goods yard and the double-slip but there's no room.)

You might be right - in the effort to keep it simple I fell in the familiar pattern of the single track BLT. But that does raise a good point: that a double track terminus in such a small space is asking a lot, especially if it's intended to be country-fied.

I agree, to be honest, but it's very difficult to keep it all on scene in the space available whilst also having the release crossover. If you could avoid using the slip to turn the mainline (somehow) your design would be much smoother. The turning routes through the slips should really only be used for exceptional (light engine) moves not mainline moves, especially the very tight radius Peco slips.

Well, for what it's worth, here's the idea that I didn't think you'd like before: The idea was to deliberately make it small, simple and a bit quirky: Only handling small trains of two coaches and a small van at the most (the traverser only really allows small trains anyway) and not pushing the tracks out to the very edges, to leave a bit of room to breathe. As I explained above, assuming that the incoming lines are double track then the trailing crossover required to get outgoing traffic onto the correct track can be imaginary and actually implemented by the traverser. This saves space. (Interestingly, the lack of the trailing crossover on scene also allows you to treat the incoming lines as single up/down and headshunt instead if you want.) The splayed run round loop is part of the quirkiness but also helps with run round clearance. Only one platform but you do have a departure bay. You could possibly add a kickback siding to the bottom goods line heading towards the signal box, just to make shunting more difficult and thus operation more "interesting"... ;-)

At some point in the planning process you'll have to accurately measure the space so you may as well do that now to avoid nasty surprises later on. Survey where doors/hatches are, where you need access to windows and any pipes or boxing that might intrude on the layout. Then draw that all up to scale in your design software. Once you've considered all the good advice in this thread, don't be afraid of the blank computer screen. Just plonk the desired elements down roughly and join them up in the most obvious way. The bits that don't work, the ugly bits and the boring bits will then be obvious and you can start to adjust and refine the design. (Or throw it away and start again, of course!) I suggest keeping it simple - keep the central area clear so that it's easy for you and visitors to move around. Run railway around the outside but don't feel constrained to stick to the square - cut one of the corners to create a long sweeping area for your big station, viaduct or whatever you want to do.

Absolutely agree with that! The desktop just becomes too cluttered with icons - most of which you never use. I pin my working apps to the taskbar and then pin useful shortcuts and commonly used files to those app icons. This arranges things into a neat hierarchy and leaves the desktop clear to run the slideshow of interesting library images.

When I say "running line" I just mean a length of track between locations in a station complex, certainly not anywhere you'd expect to find passenger traffic.

Thanks. This design concentrates on displaying locos more than making an efficient working shed area. It would be very difficult to compress a real shed track plan into this space. Having said that, it can be operated fairly sensibly and with scenery and details it should be convincing to casual viewers. Low relief engine shed on the left with 4 roads outside where up to 6 locos can stand, presenting themselves to the viewer at a good angle. Turntable area on the right with multiple radial roads to display up to 6 more locos, smokeboxes shoulder to shoulder. Running line along the front of the layout, which we imagine heads off to other parts of the station. This is where you would place and remove locos. Or you could make connections to cassettes on left and right. Watering points can easily be positioned on the plan but I haven't said where coaling takes place. It partly depends on the coaling method. Coaling could be on the headshunt spur, where access to the running line is good and where it wouldn't block other movements. Possibly off-scene entirely. Movements are possible from running line directly to any shed road, from running line to turntable and between shed and turntable via the headshunt or via the running line. (It's a shame that moves from the shed roads to the turntable via the headshunt encroach on the running line but space is tight.) There's enough room on the running line to hold several locos while you reshuffle them. Inside the shed would be painted matt black so that you can't see the truncation of the tracks. The shed doors and other small buildings would also help to disguise it. All Peco Streamline geometry: 2 medium right, 1 medium left, 1 short crossing, 1 asymmetric 3-way, 1 double slip.

Hi Alex, I was thinking about what I said above about arranging things so that locos are displayed to advantage, so that the layout IS the display cabinet, and I've come up with a design that does it. A sort of compressed cameo engine shed with some compromises but with room to shuffle your locos on-scene when you want to play. OK to post it here?

Don’t doubt it. Not a problem for any decent drawing program.

Hi Alex Why get your locos out of your display cabinet only to hide them inside an engine shed??? ;-) It might be better to model the engine shed in low relief (I.e. just the opening end of it) so that you can see the locos and that would give you more room for your trackwork and other infrastructure. The non-scenic section can be hidden in a different way if you really need it. And from a design/display point of view it might be better to arrange the shed lines to be running diagonally so that locos standing on them are seen in 3/4 profile. I’m not sure quite how/whether that would work but it seems like an idea worth thinking about... Should the access line to the shed pass through the coaling tower? And should there be a coaling tower straddling the tracks at all? It depends on your region and era. The three way point should probably have a short section of plain track between it and the turntable. I think the symmetric three way is only available in Code 100 so is that your intended rail profile? The turntable looks very close to the edges so make sure that the hole will clear the frame work below. Two water towers? They look rather small in plan (as does the coaling tower) so maybe you mean water columns?

Your world is cleaner, better maintained and more organised than the real world! And there's nothing wrong with that - it's your world to do with as you see fit!

Yes, good point. So when the FPL lever is standing Normal the FPL is engaged, that being the safest default. I think I've read about (and seen discussion on RMWeb about) FPL levers that stand Reversed when the FPL is engaged but I think that's much less common.

So, is this right: The bar shown in the photo is a lifting locking bar, probably associated with the FPL for 5. When the signalman pulls lever 4 (the FPL for 5) it simultaneously attempts to lift the bar and engage the FPL. If there's no train standing on the bar it lifts fully and the FPL engages but if there is a train standing on the bar the bar won't lift, the FPL won't engage and the lever in the box won't travel the full distance so the operator has immediate physical feedback about the presence of the train. ?

Hi Echini, The mechanism you are asking about is a detection bar of some sort. The experts should be able to tell us its proper name (there are different kinds of detection bar) and how it interacts with the rest of the signalling system.

"Swindon Egyptian" was a version of Clarendon created in the Swindon drawing office for use in their cast loco name and number plates. It's a different style than the sans-serif font used in the notice that flockandroll is asking about.

Gimp is a painting program and while I'm sure you can do a lot of good text editing in it there will come a point when the text is committed to pixels and you can't edit it any more. You need a drawing program. Something like: Adobe Illustrator (expensive) Affinity Designer (very good and not too expensive) Xara Designer (good but getting a bit old now) InkScape (free but clunky like Gimp) Corel Draw (as old as the hills)

HI David, All of those things can be changed at will in a drawing program without losing any quality. No need to use an image viewer. Furthermore, you can go back at any time and examine all the settings that are applied to the text so you don't have to remember what you did.

As JP says, it's difficult to find an exact match. There might be one out there but it would take a bit of searching. The closest I have found so far (and it's still not right) is "Old Sans Black": That has various typographical tweaks applied to it: Aspect ratio changed, tracking applied, small caps applied, line spacing tweaked, some extra fattening to account for the casting.

Tk-tk Tk-tk Tk-tk Tk-tk Tk-tk Tk-tk Tk-tk Tk-tk Tk-tk Tk-tk Tk-tk Tk-tk Tk-tk Tk-tk Tk-tk Tk-tk

Nicely done, sir! Not sure of the relative prices but the Latvians are big producers of Birch ply and there are various importers in the UK. Search for "Riga Ply" and you'll find both.

The traverser was intended to extend out into the room on full extension drawer runners with the connecting lines near the front of the layout. That maximises the number of traverser roads and temporarily grab a bit of extra space in the room when operating.

Hmmm, well, I'm not sure that my idea is going to suit you in that case. The basic thoughts are still valid so I'll get back to you if I can come up with something better. I wonder if your requirements are making things difficult: It seems to me that a double track line is most likely to terminate either in a town or city or at the coast and I'm not sure how likely the latter was for the Midland. Also, by inserting a loco release crossover you will seriously shorten the lengths of passenger trains you can handle in such a tight space. Minories (in the same 7ft length, note) avoids a release crossover partly to save space and partly to make operation more interesting. The Minories "bay" was originally a spur for the pilot loco. BTW: Should we assume that the layout is against a wall?

Hi TA, I had some thoughts: There's always the temptation with small layouts to cram the baseboards full of track work. This means that the scenic elements are inevitably compromised and the layout gets pushed into over-familiar patterns, such as saying that the setting is urban, to explain the tightness. So to fit your desired rural setting better, it might be best to keep it simple (be ruthless and only keep what you really need) and don't push the track out to the very edges, leave room for non-railway surroundings to set the scene. It's normally most satisfying to have all the station pointwork on scene (IMHO) but that's not always possible with small layouts. If you have a traverser it can take on the role of some of the points. If the outermost crossover in a double-track feed is trailing (as it is in Minories) then it is only really used to get outbound traffic onto the Up track and is not a fundamental element of the work within the station. So, as a reasonable compromise you could omit a trailing crossover from the scenic area. The bay platform (if you really have to have one...) does not need to be connected inside both the crossovers (real or notional) because it would probably only be used for departures. E.g. small passenger trains would arrive in one of the main platforms then shunt to the bay before later departing. I have sketched something out along those lines. Is it OK to post it here?