Harlequin

Thank goodness for that! ;-) Should be plenty of space, then. Phil

I think your basic topology looks OK but others here are far more expert than me. However whether it's workable or not depends on the lengths of the various sidings, headshunts and the fiddle yard. You need to draw it to scale. So is this right?: The baseboard will be 14ft by up to 3ft and the fiddle yard 2ft by 8-10in joined at right angles to the right hand end of the baseboard. If the fiddle yard is only 2ft long it may have to steal some baseboard space. Phil

If your fiddle yard is against a wall then it's probably not a good idea to have scenic areas in front of it because you need regular access to the fiddle yard. What are the dimensions of your baseboard and fiddle yard? Is the fiddle yard at right angles to the baseboard? Phil

A Google search finds this 1:72 model of a wartime corvette: http://www.model-dockyard.com/acatalog/info_RV5112.html Only 5% out of scale and at 850mm long and painted up with camouflage stripes it would make a very impressive statement alongside your docks (possibly too much?). Phil

There are many track plans in the "OO Minories track plan wanted" thread that might inspire you. I contributed two recently. A "pure" Minories here (7ft by 1ft! but excluding fiddle yard): http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/60091-00-minories-track-plan-wanted/?view=findpost&p=2842274 And a slightly expanded version (4m*0.4m including fiddle yard): http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/60091-00-minories-track-plan-wanted/?view=findpost&p=2859645 Any coastal location is a good excuse for military vehicle offloading and you could really go for it and model a dockside. Phil

Hi Clive, Please forgive me for sticking my oar in when I possibly don't know all the constraints, don't know what I'm talking about, and haven't produced a workable suggestion but... Looking at your track plan, it occurred to me that after the two twin lines have left the station, they effectively join back up again in the main loop. So, you would have GNR trains passing L&YR trains running in the opposite direction and, having sent a train out on the GNR, it would arrive back at Sheffield from the L&Y (or vice-versa). So I wondered whether it might be possible to give the GNR and the L&YR separate, twin-track loops. So, four trains running continuously, GNR up and down passing each other and L&YR up and down passing each other, until you're ready to call one or more of them into the station. I came up with this - it's just a sketch of the topology not to scale, shows no storage sidings and I don't know if it would physically fit in the space available. I didn't know which lines were which so I took a punt on the left hand lines leaving the station being GNR (blue) and right hand L&YR (red). The blue lines are simple and on the same level as the station. The red lines descend after leaving the station to a lower level so that the red loop is independent of the blue loop - it just passes under it where they cross. The red line takes it's time to join the red loop so that the incline is not too steep but also to keep the centre of the space free and make one of the joins use the same space as one of the blue joins to save space. If the loops were not intended to be scenic they could actually be right on top of each other to save more space, not offset as I've drawn them. Phil

Nothing significant - just using this blog entry to upload a signature graphic.

I notice that "Misty" was at sea on the day the BRM biplane flew over to do their aerial survey... Phil

Ah yes, great ideas. Thanks. Running big Pacific locos is a bit of a squeeze but that is one of the requirements of David (Pacific231G). He has a bit more room because I think he's modelling in HO scale but even then the crossover between the platforms might not be usable by his intended trains of Pacific plus 5 vehicles. PhilM

Yes, your method is very similar - a cassette is pretty much the same thing as a loco lift and loco lifts could be used instead of my suggested cassettes. I haven't had any personal experience of loco lifts but I was a bit suspicious of their quality and reliability and I wanted to not be moving expensive locos around too much or too far. There's also a space problem in this design because the intended trains fill the length of the traverser roads. So I suggested "plug-in" cassettes for accurate track alignment and the hidden spur gives a bit more room for the loco to be marshalled "under it's own steam" rather than by fingers. But anyone can pick and choose the methods that work best for them. And yes, the connection through the warehouse can be used to marshal goods trains out of sight, on the traverser. I think David (Pacific231G) probably always had that in mind. PhilM

I know I said "one last improvement" before but here are some refinements that would make my previous design work better: Features: Loco cassettes on traverser (300mm wide for OO Pacifics!) allow locos to be turned and moved. I thought about other configurations but I think this is best because the small cassettes are easy to handle and don't have to move far. Other rolling stock stays on the traverser. The traverser is reduced to 6 roads so that all roads except T1 can connect to... ... a spur hidden in a building in the scenic part of the layout. All traverser lines, T1-T6, can be connected to either the Up or Down station running lines - so rolling stock can never get trapped. It would be very easy to gently curve the platform 1 and 2 lines so that they are perpendicular to the right-hand end of the baseboard and thus allow further extension if required. Generously curved platforms always look good! Shown with dashed lines. The cassettes and the hidden spur allow locos to be turned and coupled to the front of a different set of rolling stock without appearing on the scenic part of the layout like this: Train runs out of station on the Up line to any traverser line (T1-T6). Loco runs onto the cassette at the end of the traverser and uncouples. The operator moves the cassette (turning it around if required) to a clear traverser line. The operator connects the traverser to the hidden spur and drives the loco across the traverser onto the hidden spur. (Remember to keep the warehouse doors closed so that the loco can't be seen from the station!) The operator connects the traverser line containing the desired rolling stock to the hidden spur and reverses the loco to couple up with it. The operator slides that traverser line across to connect with the Down line and the new train is ready to depart. That way a loco can run around rolling stock on any of the lines T2-T6 but unfortunately not on T1 because that line can't be connected to the hidden spur. It would be possible if the traverser only had 5 lines but I think it's best to have as much storage as possible. There are lots of way to work around this problem, including manually repositioning the loco but the most interesting is this: In the dead of night, when no-one's watching, open the warehouse doors and drive the loco from the hidden spur, through the goods yard onto the headshunt and back up the running lines to either Up or Down connected to T1. :-) Edit: Fixed a mistake in drawing 6f. Replaced by tweaked drawing 6g. PhilM

If you are using DCC, yes. Just wire all the left rails to each other and all the right rails to each other using the same convention for left and right as the rest of the layout, then take just one pair of flexible wires off one of the tracks to your DCC controller. The wires between tracks can either be on top of the board, crossing from one track to the next under the rails or you can drill holes and take the wires underneath the board. That way all tracks have power and control signal all the time. There's a small danger you might select a loco and drive it off the traverser by mistake but you just have to be careful and the trade-off is the simpler wiring. PhilM

Sure, but in this is designed for a specific room size of 4m width. Phil

Thanks, One last improvement, then: Large radius points for all reverse curves. I think this layout needs a traverser because any points in the fiddle yard would reduce the length of the trains it could store. (More roads = more storage and more operating potential.) Escape route for passenger locos from platform 1. Goods yard with 3 sidings and headshunt that can be operated independently from the passenger side (because you said passenger alone was not enough). Concealed fiddle yard connection in goods shed (as I think you've hinted at in previous plans). I'm happy to provide a to-scale PDF if anyone is interested. Phil

Hi David, Further inspiration came to me!... I am assuming that the walls of the room are to north, east and west of the plans we've been exchanging. If that's the case then the fiddle yard incoming and outgoing tracks need to be at the front of the baseboard ("south" on the drawings) so that a traverser or sector plate has room to move away from the wall. To achieve that I have rotated the design by 180 degrees: Aspects of this layout: The goods sidings/buildings are now at the back so don't obscure the platforms and passenger traffic. Locos refuelling, being cleaned, or whatever are on display right at the front of the layout. Instead of trying to straighten up the platform lines I set them at a diagonal and this avoids reverse curves on entry, gives a smidge more length, makes carriage-to-platform clearance more comfortable and makes the layout a bit more "dynamic". Easily 1500mm platform length for both platforms 1 and 2. 1450mm width traverser - but it could be wider depending on how it's constructed. Easy access to traverser entry/exit to tweak alignment and fix derailments. (I reverted to medium radius points for the reverse curve because I think the large radius Y's solve that problem - but one or more large radius points could probably still be fitted within the central metre baseboard if required.) As with my previous suggestion, it's the large radius Y's that really make this work. The reverse curve from the down line into platform 1 is very smooth and the other arm of the Y throws the line to platform 3 further across the baseboard, as needed. PhilM

Hi again, I've just had a brainwave and I think this one works rather well! One long radius point (purple) is preserved but a pair of large radius Ys (green) are now used so that: The pair of Ys turn both tracks a further 6 degrees so that they remain parallel while sending the incoming line towards platform 3 and the goods depot The reverse curve into platform 1 is now very smooth - probably no buffer locking The ladder of 4 critical points between platform 3 and the outgoing line fit comfortably on the central 1000mm baseboard The double slip in the platform 3 line / goods depot is now cleanly on the left hand baseboard with plenty of space and a single track connection back to the goods sidings on the central baseboard There's definitely room for ~1500mm long trains on platform 1. (Peco Streamline double or single slips have quite a small radius so traffic doesn't move over them as smoothly as larger radius points joined toe-to-toe.) Phil :-)

So, the baseboard sizes are 1500mm, 1000mm and 1500mm, all 400mm wide, right? Is there any leeway to move the break points between boards? Are they demountable or fixed? Is there a wall to the north (I assume so)? What type of fiddle yard are you thinking of? (Given the 1500mm length of the fiddle yard and your ideal train length I guess there isn't enough room for any pointwork in the fiddle yard so the options are traverser, sector plate or cassettes.) Is the model UK or continental? Thanks for the tip about Birmingham Hope St. PhilM

Hi David, Here's an attempt at your terminus, using the "Minories" idea of turning the tracks very definitely across the platforms and not deviating once that turn has been made: I've used large radius points (purple) for the difficult reverse curve and suggested a double slip in the goods area to save space and make shunting a bit more flexible. Everything else is medium radius. PhilM

It's a "do-er up-er". What was the 1930's equivalent of "Homes under the Hammer"? Phil

I found that using all small radius points with a straight(ish) section of track between the problem points, with the restriction that it all still has to fit onto the 42in Minories '89 baseboard, doesn't fix the problem unfortunately: Using small points still doesn't create room for a long enough straight section. If I had more room a straight section (the length of the bogie-centre-to-bogie-centre) would undoubtedly fix the problem. But I want to be faithful to the Minories '89 design and so I have to accept the reverse curve and the limitations that it imposes. Either: Use tension hook couplings (or similar) that can be propelled over that route without problems. Or: Just don't propel any long vehicles with large outswings over that route - and that might not be so bad in practice because: They can be pulled over that route in either direction (so long as corridor connections are not a problem) Shorter vehicles are not a problem Long vehicles must be propelled into or out of platform 1 from the departure line As you say, David, some compromise is inevitable trying to fit any interesting pointwork into such a small area and I guess we've explored the limits and found out where the biggest compromise has to be made! I hope you've got a bit more leeway to fit your terminus and fiddle yard into your design space. Do you have a track plan? PhilM

Ping! <Lightbulb appears over head>: If buffer locking is considered a problem then the reverse curve needs to be reduced/eliminated and to do that more space is needed between curves. So, smaller radius points (i.e. shorter points) would actually help. Longer, larger radius points make the problem worse... I need to investigate this idea (but I'd better get on with some work first). PhilM

I found that the 12 degree angle provided by the points back-to-back alone was not enough to swing the lines across the board towards platform 3. So I introduced a ~32mm section of track giving another 3 degree turn. Then, to fit the critical ladder of 5 points and 32mm curve into the 42in half-baseboard requires three medium and two short radius (see my PDF in post #459 http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/60091-00-minories-track-plan-wanted/page-19&do=findComment&comment=2842274). I looked at using the Streamline curved points but I don't think they will help because the outer radius gives 8 degrees turn and the inner radius gives 20 degrees - too much for most positions in the Minories geometry. I'm also looking at clipping the points, as suggested, but that seems a bit like cheating to me when the implication from "60 small plans" is clearly that it can be done using standard parts. Doing that also introduces new problems with track spacing. It all depends on whether the reverse curve into platform 1 will cause running problems for coaches and I'm currently joining points and track together on my dining room table to investigate. Edit: I can see that buffer locking would be an issue if coaches were pushing each other buffer-to-buffer, but not if tension hook couplings are pushing each other. (However I realise that's not necessarily desirable...) Also, swapping one of the Small radius points for a Medium would not prevent buffer locking. PhilM

Yes, completely agree. In millimetres: Half track spacing is 25.4mm. So 25.4/(1-cos(12)) gives 1162.34mm, which fits their template photo perfectly and is "nominally" 1219mm == 4ft. PhilM

It depends on what they mean by "Nominal", doesn't it? I've used their downloadable PDF templates (http://www.peco-uk.com/page.asp?id=tempc75) and overlaid exact fixed radius curves at 1:1 scale and this is the result: The large yellow shape is a 12degree sector of a very large circle and it's radius is... 4ft. You can see it's not an exact fit but I believe that's partly due to parallax errors in their photo and maybe manufacturing tolerances. With any larger radius it's not possible to achieve the 12degree turnout angle within the 2in track spacing constraint. Edit: I'm referring to radii to track centres - not to inner or outer rails. Therefore either the Peco product description is incorrect or the word "Nominal" adds some qualification that's not immediately obvious. PhilM

I've examined the (non-curved) Peco Streamline geometry in depth and it all seems perfectly logical: Small = 24in = 2ft Medium = 36in = 3ft Large = 48in = 4ft All have 12degree turnout angles, all give 2in spacing between track centres when joined back to back (e.g. as a crossover) and some have short straight sections in them to achieve the 12deg turnout and 2in spacing. I don't know why the internet thinks that Large radius points are 60in (I've seen it repeated many times). I think it's just one of those memes that gets propagated around and taken as fact. PhilM