Harlequin

Here's my SketchUp post: http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/60091-00-minories-track-plan-wanted/page-19&do=findComment&comment=2850871

I suggest putting the battens on the outside and underneath so the inside of the box is clean and simple for modelling. That works fine if you don't mind what the outside looks like and the battens can be used as handles when it's closed.

Will you have actuators or point motors under the "baseboard"? If so you need to allow room for that - so make the box H shaped in section. It's easier to fit panels together if you have some small battens at the joints because you can screw through ply into the batten rather than into the edge of plywood. And it's easier to fit batten exactly square and in line than to fix two bits of ply square and in line with each other. If you use battened joints then the plywood is more about holding the box square than being structural in itself (providing "racking resistance") and in that case you could go down to 6mm for perhaps all the side and ends, leaving just the baseboard 9mm. I started working out a similar plywood box for a OO Minories layout and posted some shots of a Sketchup model in the "Minories track plan wanted" thread. I'll link to it later (after work...)

Hi again, Instead of drawing up to date track plans, maybe you could post "aerial" photos? I.e. stand in the middle with the camera/phone as high as possible looking down on the baseboards, turn clockwise taking photos that overlap slightly. We can work it out from there.

Hi, I haven't looked back through the history of this thread but I think it would be a shame to have an imagined branch line destination rather than a real one. I think you would find operation unsatisfying. A railcar needs a platform(!) and I don't see one anywhere else on your layout, if I'm reading the plans right - er, but they don't really match up with the photos, so it's a bit confusing. I think the basic problem is that the baseboard is just too wide on the west (and arguably on the north). I see on the photos that you have a turntable and loco stabling on the lower level in front of the branch line station which is not shown on the track plan you linked to, which I guess is why the baseboards are so wide there). I don't know what your constraints and requirements are for the layout (if you could summarise for us latecomers that would be great). So bearing in mind that I might be missing something: If you were starting from scratch I would suggest: Have a bit less baseboard area and more room in the middle. Ensure that you can reach the back everywhere without too much stretching. Make the trackwork fit more efficiently - a bit less empty space between siding lines. A simple loop on the main level (maybe twin track) with a simple lifting section across the doorway carrying just the level loop track(s). Start the branch line rising just to the south of the doorway and have the high-level branch line terminus on the longer north side rather than the west. Put your fiddle yard in front of, and partially under, the terminus - then there's no scenic conflict between the high and low levels. Have your goods yard on the south side. Probably not realistic but it might give you some ideas...

I asked them about this on Friday and they said that they are not sending the newsletters out for a few weeks while they do some behind-the-scenes work to improve them. Should be back soon.

Here's a document containing some useful bits and pieces: Curves of common radii - drag them over your curves to assess if radii are too tight. A rail track brush - apply to any simple line to lay rails and sleepers along it. A couple of points with rails and sleepers - they have the same geometry and snapping centre lines as in the Peco Geometry document above. Spacers - drag them over your lines and curves to assess spacing. Snap to line and snap parallel line to spacer to get exact spacing. OO Design tools.pdf OO Design tools.xar

Thanks! Yes, they are Streamline 00 curved points. I find I'm using them more since I added them to my geometry document (at the top of this thread), I guess because I no longer see them as exotic oddities! Even the 3-way point becomes useful now and then... ;-)

Has anyone ever used DCC sound to suggest that trains are much longer and more massive than the actual models? For example, when your short HST set pulls into a platform and stops, play the realistic sounds of both power cars, 8 carriages and all the interlinking gubbins all coming to a stop? Would that help the illusion? I wonder...

Hi Ed, You still need to give us some more solid information. First and foremost: accurate measurements of the space where the layout is proposed to be constructed and how far into the room it can extend (i.e. width from back wall). Without that info it's not really possible to design a layout because every centimetre makes a difference for small layouts. If you don't have accurate measurements yet then please get them the next time you visit the flat and it would be really helpful if you could take some photos and post them. There are more questions we need answered but getting accurate measurements is the top priority and there's no point doing anything else until we have them. I have one other question, though: how did you come by your eclectic collection of locos and rolling stock? Is it really essential to run it all on the proposed layout? Since space is seemingly so limited it might be better limit yourself just to the items that can be used to make limited length trains (and that fit into a more focused era).

Here's a layout design that started as a response to Bristol Park Street (http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/122449-minories-on-the-western-region). After I had simplified the crossovers I wanted to try to get access to the goods siding(s) downstream from the only crossover so that goods traffic could enter on the Down line and leave on the Up. I achieved that in this design and provided a headshunt and sidings so that goods shunting doesn't impinge on the running lines and is operationally worthwhile. By sharing the platform 2 escape road with the goods yard (for space efficiency) the goods yard has the classic "Inglenook" pattern of 3 sidings and headshunt and so it can be used to run the Inglenook shunting puzzle, largely independently of the passenger side. The loco spur allows "Minories" style operation of the passenger platforms: full-length trains where the hauling loco can't escape and a pilot loco is used to remove empty carriages and free up the original loco for other duties. The two baseboards are 1400*500mm each with an imagined fiddle yard perpendicular to the north east side. Min radius 610mm (2ft). I think this design has a good flow and a realistic linearity to it. (Click to enlarge)

Hi Nick, I very much admire what you're doing but the joggle from platform 3 through the double slip to get onto the Up line niggled me. So I sketched something out, which I hope is a little bit smoother and simpler. Basically: Give platform 3 it's own connection to Up, just have one crossover from platforms 2&3 to the Up line and by angling the points more diagonally the platforms can be a bit longer. Sorry I wasn't around to contribute earlier. Edit: I originally posted a variation on the above plan that moved the goods line connection and added some reverse spurs but on reflection I realise it would have been rubbish to operate so I have deleted it.

Loads of room! (Please don't pay too much attention to the track details - I just did enough to work out the important dimensions.) :-)

Hi, There are lots of track plans in books and magazines that will fit into 10ft by 4ft, so you should be able to design something that works. Can you use the 2-3ft at the end of the room opposite the door? That would allow an L shaped layout which might open up the possibilities a bit. And you could then slim down the main board to make it easier to reach across and give more space in the room. To upload images to posts, you must click "Reply with attachments", then "Choose Files...", then after the file has uploaded (might take a few seconds or minutes depending on your connection speed) click in the post where you want the image to appear and click "Add to Post" and you'll see an "[attatchment...]" code appear.

Hi Clive, I was reading the Peco Track Plans Compendium last night and I had a small brainwave about your design. It took me all day, on and off, to get it into a working state. It was a bit tricky! If you're committed to your existing design or I've failed to take something crucial into account, or you just don't like the idea, please ignore this message. No problem. The idea is to use a deliberate reversing loop to get "up" trains to run "down" whenever you want without having to bring them into the station immediately. Trains can leave the station and run on the "up"/inner/anti-clockwise circuit continuously for as long as you want until you're ready to reverse them. Then you run them round the reversing loop and after that they can continue running on the "down"/outer/clockwise circuit until you're ready to call them into the station on either the L&YR or GNR tracks. And this is all on one level. Here's a sketch. The fat grey lines indicate two parallel up and down tracks and as many storage sidings as you need, or will fit. The thinner brown line is the single track reversing loop. The station is slightly diagonal to make best use of the space and to ease the connection out to the main running circuits. The line feeding the north storage sidings is also used to feed the reversing loop, so does double-duty, and the sidings fit inside the loop. The loop line might be hidden where it runs alongside the station. It would crossover from up/inner to down/outer where it rejoins the main circuit on the west side. The reversing loop is long enough to hold a full-length train. If you were using DCC (which I understand you're not a fan of...) trains could run non-stop through the loop using an auto-reverser. The single-track reversing loop runs over a lifting section to allow you to get access to the north storage sidings (the blue area shows roughly where the operator can comfortably get to).

I just found out that the XTC program is on Sky tonight so I can't watch it. Boo!

Hi Ian, I think it's just a matter of using the right named colours for the outlines but I'll try to find out tomorrow and get back to you. (Possibly also creating a simple silhouette path by using Combine Shapes => Add shapes and setting a flat fill colour.)

Here's how to start a track plan in a drawing program: (All of the steps below can be changed later - everything is editable in a drawing program so you're not committing yourself at any stage.) Create a blank page of the size you want - usually the size of paper your printer can handle. Work out how big your design will be in the real world and set a scale factor in the drawing so that your design will fit onto the page*. For instance, to fit a design for a 2.5m long layout onto an A4 page you might set a scale factor of 1 : 10. (* I don't think Affinity Designer supports drawing scale factors yet.) Create a layer for the baseboards. Draw the baseboards to scale. Usually this means simply drawing some rectangles, setting their sizes and giving them a light neutral fill colour. Create a layer for a grid on top of the baseboard layer. A grid of a known size helps you and your readers understand how big elements of the design are. Draw a grid of equally spaced lines, or snapped together squares, of accurate size - most typically 1ft or 300mm. Create a layer for the track layout on top of the grid. Start drawing some simple lines to give a rough idea of where the tracks might be laid. Drop in some points templates (see above) to join the lines together. Now you're up and running! You can add more layers later to hold things like ground surfaces, trees, shrubs and buildings. Layers are a great way to keep the drawing organised.

I hope you realise that in the near future, when people search on Google for images of "Small Prairie Tanks", these images will pop up and most of them won't know these aren't photos of the prototypes! Maybe those who know something about buffer beams will spot the "deliberate" mistake, though... ;-)

Yes, I'm afraid that Xara Designer's tools for creating arcs are not very good so I drew circles, then drew lines at fixed angles from the centres and sliced the circle to get constant radius curves. For some "flexi" track runs I just use bezier curves, make sure that they are smooth with tangential joins at the ends by eye and then check the min radii by dragging a fixed radius template over the top. Similarly with parallel tracks I draw a 51mm circle and drag it along the tracks to gauge the distance between them, making the spacing wider where long vehicles might overhang. I hope you give it a try, I'll do my best to answer any questions and I'm looking forward to seeing what you come up with!

Nice to meet another loyal Xara user! Yes, I agree about seeing the fixed geometry sections during the design stage and I have been using colour to do that. E.g.: Then, when the design was finalised you might reset them all to black again for a cleaner look.

Suggested method to transfer a point or crossing symbol into a scaled track plan drawing: Select the item you want in the points and crossings drawing Note the actual size width or height that your drawing program reports for the selected item Copy Paste into your scaled track plan Set width or height of the pasted item to the value you noted earlier (making sure that aspect ratio will be kept so that the item is not distorted). Now you've got the point or crossing accurately to size in your track plan you can make as many copies as you need by copy/paste, duplicate or clone and they can be rotated and flipped as needed.

Hi Ian, Full disclosure: I actually work for Xara and more than that I've worked on Xara Designer since day 1 (and before that on ArtWorks!). I'm not trying to push it forward here. The competing tools are equally capable, in fact better in many ways, and developing faster than Designer (sadly) - but obviously it's the tool I know best so that's why I'm using it. The RMWeb Admins have now allowed XAR files to be uploaded and so you'll find the original XAR file for the points and crossings in Post #2 now. The points and crossings are all stored as symbols ("LiveCopies") so that changing one will change all the copies. I understand what you're saying about making the ends more visible but those end marks would then be visible in final drawings too and you don't normally see such marks in track plans in books and magazines. However we could perhaps put marks in that only appear in outline mode (view quality 0). (I've already included some invisible lines to make sure that angle snapping has definite angled lines to work with rather than relying on calculating tangents at the curve ends.) Phil

In post #2 http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/126780-layout-design-in-illustration-software/&do=findComment&comment=2874563 I have corrected the 3-way point to now use medium radius curves, uploaded a new PDF file and thanks to the site admins I've now also uploaded the original XAR file.

Only before November 1933... Phil