RobinofLoxley

Its a question of proportions isnt it. A long modern coach (which arguably shouldn't be anywhere near a Minories plan anyway) at 30cm long compared to something pre-grouping or even Big Four at 22cm is going to look different on a 19cm long turnout.

On 30/05/2024 at 19:55, F-UnitMad said:

I'm pretty sure that number could be reduced by some way. The bottom-left corner of the plan (a yard?) in particular seems to have several crossovers that either duplicate each other or seem superfluous. Post it in the track planning section of the Forum & some of the planning Gurus on here will be able to help improve it.

Maybe. There would be quite a bit to criticise.

Lets just say that as its off-topic and the OP hasnt asked for support on the layout, that reaching the upper corners is going to be challenging. Also the assumption about gradients might be a bit optimistic, as the incline has to transition to flat at each end. RTR steam era stock will likely lose contact on the transitions if they are too severe; by severe I would be working on steady gradients averaging not more than about 2%

21 hours ago, Lee-H said:

Isopropyl Alcohol (IPA). Propranolol is medication for heart problems and severe anxiety.

IPA works quickly and effectively and doesn’t leave any mess like track rubbers. Also great for cleaning recording heads on old analogue machines but that’s getting slightly off the subject now.

Just for clarity isopropanol is old nomenclature the modern name is propan-2-ol. Isopropyl alcohol is even older. Same compound.

Another thing to think about is what space exists around the 8x2 that might be used to take stock off or feed it onto the layout, by using a cassette, a section of track on a portable piece of board that can be mounted temporarily to one face of the main board. The idea of trains leaving for somewhere or arriving from somewhere is a potent one, using a cassette doesn't sacrifice main board space to achieve the same result. A Cassette isnt the only way but its relatively simple (he said, never having built one).

End to end in this case means one transit of the 8' length as a u-shape isnt possible on this board size in OO, unless a second board could be added to take the curve radius.

There's nothing wrong with the throat, but of course the track separation will be extra wide compared to standard.

As far as the Morden track and platform pattern is concerned, I used to use Cockfosters regularly with the same pattern. Usually it allowed the train arriving in the central platform to discharge passengers one side then fill from the other. Out of peak hours the centre and one other platform were used, with the third platform used to rotate stock in and out of service. Cockfosters had the large depot of course, I assume Morden has some stock sidings somewhere.

Something to think about Tim is whether you are a modeller or an operator. Opening remarks make me think you might be more inclined towards modelling on which case you need to give plenty of consideration to location as within your mentioned era quite  lot disappeared. 

The plan is squashed, but I simply followed the original prospectus. To be honest I assumed that the OP couldn't find a satisfactory solution meeting his criteria, so it wasn't the moment to start offering alternatives.

To me it looks a lot of track for a single track branch terminus, so it needs a good cover story. The main temptation is to reduce by 1 track and use the space to have a wider platform, although that isn't required.

20 minutes ago, The Nottingham Extension said:

That looks so close to what I had in my head. Is there a way of moving the headshunt slightly so that all the sidings can be accessed from it? Would a slightly larger filler triangle on the right help with that?

If the left-most turnout is replaced by a three-way turnout and the turnout nearest the arriving line is removed, then all 3 sidings face the headshunt. It would clearly help if that triangular piece was wide enough to take the headshunt track further; otherwise to increase its length the sidings must be shortened.

It may not show up on the drawing but there is a trap point between the goods sidings and the main arrivals line, and another on the runaround loop.

As far as the shorter train is concerned, it can be researched to find out what a typical formation might be; for sure that could be a single coach at times; but note if you make a 3 coach train impossible by design, you can't run it.

Maybe something like this. Its tight to get the platform length!

I drew a building across the station track at the LH end to be a street level type, but Anyrail seems to have lost it in conversion.

Welcome to the madhouse 'The Nottingham Extension' would you mind telling us what track code you have built in, for the rest of the project. Also, which way is the station facing (or to put it another way, where does the operator stand on that diagram)?

Having created quite a sructure already, I'm slightly puzzled as to why you need advice for this particular section. Are you looking fora prototype or just a plan that gets all the features in?

7 hours ago, Chimer said:

The beauty of the fiddle yard arrangement in the very first plan (which I have used myself) was that you could run a train from one FY siding to the other, then bring another loco off the stub siding to take it away again, with the original train loco moving to the stub.  So 3 locos involved altogether in running a service back and forth, with the locos always reappearing from where you'd expect them to be.  Now, having double-tracked the line on the right hand side, there's no way the stock from an arrival in the inner fiddle yard siding can access the correct (outer) track for the next journey.  And (compared with the first plan) nowhere as convenient for the second loco to sit while waiting it's turn.  

Just for clarity @Chimer could you highlight which is the 'First' plan you are referring to, thanks. 

@moawkwrd dont beat yourself up at all over the first plan, its in a restricted space and well thought out. The second plan is different, I'm not sure its an improvement myself. Out of interest to see what Hornby TT looked like I redrew the plan, the only issue is the crossover. I replaced it in a different position as shown below - I dont know if that works any more, but I assumed that the same number of sidings was required.

However, I didnt have any problem with Tillig slips, part 83300 slots straight in, its the same length as the crossover. How the track profile is though I have no idea. (Sorry about the dodgy pasting).

One more thing Tim, although you say that the given dimensions are the larget that you can use, presumably you have some operating space in front, for example? I'm asking because in any layout trains have to come and go from 'Somewhere' and in this case, the answer might be to feed them on and off from the front side by using what is normally called a cassette - a length of rail on a plank or in a box that can be hooked on to the front to run a train on or off. So what do you have in that respect?

6 hours ago, tim3766 said:

Hello again to all      and that you all for your input ,  ok i have found some track plans      and i am wondering if i can fit one  onto my board  74 inch x 28 inch     Attached are the plans 

Again i want to do it in DCC        freight yard 

 

Any help greatly appreciated 

 

 

many thanks 

Tim

Starting from the top, we have a layout with Streamline turnouts. They look like the smallest, code 91 or 92, about 8 inches long, making the scale squares 1 foot or 300mm which is a typical size. So its 8 feet long.

The second is with Setrack items (wider angles), making the layout 6' long.

The third is scaled in metres so it would be about 12 feet long.

The lower is more or less a copy of the first one, differently scales and cropped.

If I'm right about the scales, they are all one foot wide, apart from No 2. So really all are the wrong size, as too narrow. But shunting plank layouts are quite typical.

Welcome Tim.

Mdf isnt a recommended material for making baseboards, most here will vote for good quality plywood, minimum 9mm thick. 

It will help anyone suggesting a plan, if you could possibly find a location that interests you to make it the basis of a model. 

When you talk about messing up, what track planning software if any have you tried?

Era is basically 'Blue Diesel' , is that correct? 

With the restricted space did you consider a smaller scale, do you already have OO stock? 

'Branch Line Terminii of the GWR, volume 2', by Paul Karau has some photos that show the loading bank, in the section about Princetown. There isn't any relevant description or text in it, though. There are drawings of the buildings, without dimensions, but there is no mention there of the bank, I suppose because it's not a building.

This kind of question usually appears when there is an operating problem, and people start looking for some kind of fault.

12 hours ago, KeithMacdonald said:

 

Damn, i know i shouldn't have trusted Wiki

I walked the entire length once during a service hiatus took 20 mins to do the circuit.

On 20/03/2024 at 22:57, KeithMacdonald said:

@aeroken1 - have you decided what you want to model?

 

For all we know, you could be aiming for something as extreme as Gloucester station, which has the country's longest continuous platform at 602 metres, which would be about 26 feet of OO-gauge.

 

It's entirely your choice. 😀

 

 

I thought the Eurostar platforms at Cheriton were longer?? 

The most significant practical problem to me is access at the top left; the loop there needs a hatch, wide enough for shoulders to get through, where the sidings are on the latest plan. A similar problem with the turntable exists on the right. Very complex to build, especially with the split board requirement. I have doubts about how well this will operate; can you export from your drawing package to Trainplayer, so you can see if it works.

I have a layout with this sort of structure but my sections in the area A-A' and B-B' are both long enough by design to be switchable so that is what I have done. I used one AR1 and one LS450 (not sure about the number there). The AR1 was harder to set up but neither has failed since introduction.

I have a loft space of similar size and i have platforms which can take 5 x Mk1 coaches plus a loco in the Terminus style stations that I have, and 6 x in the intermediate station. This is with the platforms being some inches longer than the trains, and allowing a station pilot to remove the coach rake without fouling any turnouts. 

With this pattern the whole layout appears to be decently proportional but I probably wont know that until the layout is fully populated with buildings and other miscellaneous things. 

4 hours ago, RobAllen said:

I read it as the station building would be above the platforms creating a scenic break to hide the trac curves.

OK but the station tracks and the loop 'below' don't line up..

The first revision certainly works, but I can't see how the revision with an upper level works at all. Have you done any work on gradients?

You also need to recognise access. You cant reach top right or left to fix a stall or derailment and have put objects in the way of access hatches that would be needed in the baseboards. Most people reckon on a human reach limit of 80-90cm.

I operated 36 SEEP motors with one CDU through a bank of switches. Noisy, broke a couple of turnouts too