RobinofLoxley

@jademalo I'm not sure if its possible to mail a file through the site, I think it has be done via external email. I'm OK with that. Can anyone confirm please? (looks to be the case as the email format here is the same as a posting, and you cant lift any material out of those) (Will be tomorrow anyway, most likely)

I've made up a v2 showing some ways to develop the original concept, although more track isnt always better. Once a diagonal/loop is in place other features have to follow to fit in physically and operationally. There's no need for a headshunt, apart from the difficulty of fitting it in, when the stock is bidirectional; of course there are quite a few TMD's accessed via headshunts out there, it doesnt suit this plan thats all. I think that 3-4 coach DMU/EMU or equivalent train length is about right. It was possible to fit an island platform bottom right, I'm not sure I like it personally but even if there wasnt a platform I would round the curves there to get away from a train set shape. The sidings top left could be goods but are intended to be a TMD which is why the access is from a trailing turnout with stock reversing into it. Generally on design, everything is code 55 except for the 45 degree curves that come from setrack. In my experience which is entirely in OO, if you need sharp curves its easier to use preformed ones, rather than try to bend flexible track, where possible, making only gentle curves with flexitrack. The setrack curves are designed for a slightly wider gauge (track separation) than code 55 but they can still be used, although the positions wont correspond exactly as they appear in flextrack layouts. They work really well at the station approach, giving a very easy construction. Some curves have to made with flexi as they arent multiples of 11.25 dgrees. Electrically, the original plan works in either DC or DCC. The length of the reversing loop section isnt a determining factor for the operational principle, which is that the track section is isolated at each end, both rails, with insulating fishplates, then polarity is switched manually (DC) or by an autoreverser (DCC). I have two autoreversing modules (different suppliers) on my own layout and they have never given any trouble. Personally, I would recommend going straight into DCC using a white z21 (the baby model with less features). Run it from a phone screen or pad, which should be easy to do as the whole plan will be in front of you.

I know thats not directed at my post, but just for clarity, I used a mixture of bits especially setrack curves, to speed up making the drawing. Agree 100% with all the comments.

Here are a few pointers I hope! When planning a layout you need to think about what stock movements are intended and what are possible. Very specifically, when you have a terminus station on the side of a loop, the only way trains can get back to the station is by reversing back, and the same applies to trains running towards the station access - they can only go clockwise (as you have drawn it) by reversing or leaving a siding that faces the required way. The reversing moves look ugly. The alternative is a reversing loop that creates the required movement. You need a certain amount of space to fit one in (after taking a chunk out for the station in the first place. This is where the slips come in, as they permit a crossing move and a turnout move in the same space. I used code 55 items as they are more compact, with the comparison code 80's outside the layout at the bottom. They are a few cm longer, which add up around the plan. The reversing section is 108cm, the most it can be on this plan style, an island platform would fit there but the extra turnouts then restrict the train length that can be used without fouling the turnouts while stopped. I should add, having forgotten it, that the two sidings to the right form the alternative solution to the one-way only problem if used as a Terminus.

I would remove the cupboard door

Well thats all good. You can post where you like, the only advantage to moving the thread is that those with a specific interest in layout design might miss it where it is; If others behave as i do, they dont look in subsections that dont interest them, ever. You are absolutely right about code 80 and 55; but they can be mixed, and this is especially important regarding slips which are only available, strangely, in code 55 and are absoluely essential for space saving. While the 2M dimension isn't especially restricted in N (would be 4M translated to OO which is quite a decent room size) the 0.79M dimension is. Its important for drafting track plans as its a waste of time to draw things in a different code that cant then be reproduced in the chosen one because the turnout angles arent the same, for example. @AY Mod can we move this to layout and track design pretty please?

I'm sorry, Im finding this thread a bit confusing; it belongs in layout and track design, would it be OK to move it? The confusion is because the board size is restricted to 2.0M x 0.79M and yet there are plans here in OO with third radius curves that dont fit on the template. Has the template changed? The wonkiness is due to poor selection of track elements; using Anyrail takes practice (I feel comfortable after about 3 years worth of playing around, and that is just track not scenery!); is this Peco code 80, and would this be your final choice?

Personally, @The Johnster I would be happy to leave that plan as it is, so that when built any difficulties that appear have to be resolved by the builder of the layout. If you try and resolve everything at plan level there will be less learning taking place. There is nothing in it that will prevent it working, in principle. btw, where you have written 'lad' above, remove the 'l' and substitute a 'd'

Plenty of time for your son to grow into this. Mine never had a technical bent, but I have a great nephew who was into programmable toys by about age 8 and he is looking forward he tells me to operating my layout from his house, which is about 150 miles away btw. What are you planning with the dining table? Just running track across it? Asking as on my original plan all the main turnouts would fall there. With this approach I think all the turnouts will need to be operated by hand, although surface mounting is possible. Cork roll wont compensate if adjacent tables arent level, or more likely the floor isnt, leaving small changes to be allowed for.

There's a lot of discussion, and then some more, and a bit more after that, on Minories. It was intended as a very compact illustration of a very compact urban terminal, and as such is rarely modelled as it was designed. Usually bits are added on - there was some provision for this in later versions of the original plan but the whole things invites that; otherwise you would just have the same kind of train arriving and departing throughout the day with only frequency variations, and secondary movements such as taking stock out for cleaning etc. But the core principle is widely used any time there is a 3-road terminus its likely to use the Minories structure because its so efficient for that, in its time. So after deciding which extra bits to put in, the discussion often turns to the hidden end - what to do with trains leaving the modelled scene. Personally I have early memories of my father catching commuter trains to london, which was the start of an interest in railways, seeing those steam hauled suburban services. I recall tank engines, and I must have been 6 or 7 when I first saw them, and I can remember engines facing the wrong way, i.e. running tender first sometimes, and at others pushing, but I think only Kings Cross bound trains were ever pushed. But this scenario at modelling level is achieved just by having a run-around. Otherwise, fiddle yards tacked onto Minories are going to be more extensive than the modelled area, which is just a consequence of its compactness. You can have traversers, sector plates, cassette systems, where the train leaving the scene is going to be replaced by another similar, including replacing the loco. Its possible to have a turntable either at the far end of the fiddle yard from the station, or on a spur from the station so light engines can be turned in order to take trains with trapped locos back out. This is a different circulation to the push-pull type I can recall from Kings Cross. It would also be possible to run return loops, this requires at least 3x as much space as the original terminal. This is just a poor attempt to summarise material relevant to the OP from about 110 pages of thread.

Hello Glob-ally. This is a nice plan, but the given the evident inexperience of the original poster, and the the fact that its going to be a temporary installation, I would think that its overly ambitious. Feel free to disagree.

Conversion to Hornby ST231 - 3rd rad curve = R609 ST235 - 4th rad curve = R8261 St200 - straight = R600 ST 201 - straight = R601 ST241 - left turnout = R8077 ST250 short crossing = R614 ST240 right turnout= R8078 ST244 right curved turnout = R8075 SL-100 flexitrack wooden sleeper version =R8090

I see where you are going, getting used to placing objects within a prescribed location. Look at track laying tools relating to flexitrack, such as the tools to define a track length, a curve, or add a track parallel (very useful for creating parallel loops for example). The layout ideas above are a bit different to what you specified earlier. You can now see that having a four road station, with track long enough to accommmodate your trains (which they probably arent at the moment, and then designing what we call a 'throat', the complex of trackwork required to get trains in and out from each platform, consumes a lot of space, more than you have. That why a loop structure is easier than a large terminus style in this space. Generally we find end to ends more interesting to operate when designed well, but it has to be practical to build it too. One other point - it looks as if your larger boards are more than 1M deep, you wont be able to reach the back to sort a derailment. 80cm is a typical maximum for easy reach.

I couldnt see how to do that using only Setrack (my decision) without shortening the available platform length and the predominant trains are HST's so I've assumed 4/5 cars and long. Using streamline I would have put a slip in but that affects gauge and i was trying to keep it simple.

I think something simple is needed to begin with that meets the brief but is hopefully simple to construct, wire and operate using DC. The plan below uses setrack curves (peco labels but Hornby are identical) with mainly flexitrack straight sections (which can therefore be part constructed from setrack straights). The curves are R3 inside and R4 outside - its possible to make these from flexitrack. It needs 2 DC controllers, one for each line, and while the setrack turnouts are self isolating there are 2 places where insulating fishplates will be needed to keep the controls separate. The platforms dominate a bit but 2 stations were specified and ideally the platforms are as long as the trains, which means out of proportion really. The bridge top left is to be a view breaker. Tunnels can be placed either top or bottom. Fitting the level crossing caused a few problems, I guess the 6 year old needs to drive items across it properly. In that location the crossing gates hold trains in the station. If this is thougt to be OK the breakdown into sections can be worked out. Most turnouts are on the same board, and I see that as being fully constructed where some of the others might have track laid when required to facilitate dismantling.

Great stuff all round. Does Harlequins board plan definitely fit between the restrictions? If it does post the dimensions on the diagram to be certain that anyone venturing a track plan is on the same page. Just an extra question @Mysticpuzzle, where do you think you might go on terms of era in the future? Modern? Grotty Diesels? Pre-Grouping ? (Lol) etc. Might affect track planning.....

However, its strange that it derailed in a single location only.

A free standing 8 x 4 board has quite a lot of weight - some people would choose to break that down into smaller pieces but thats not always convenient. A single piece, from say 9mm ply, will need to be braced to stop it flexing or warping. The bracing has to be planned around the layout, for example so that point operations arent impacted by bracing underneath. This is where Anyrail comes in (Or Scarm, XTrakCad etc) as the planning is critical - you can make any mistake on your computer and correct it in a few seconds. If you are into geekery I'm sure you can master Anyrail, you just need to devote some time to playing with it. Then look at existing proposals - @Harlequin of this parish does layout plans as a service, and there are many proposals in 'Layout and Track plans' in different shapes and sizes, with discussions on optimisation that will enable you to understand the landscape a bit better.

You would be wasting your time trying to build and operate that track plan. For a first attempt the layout should be boring and flat. Look for help from folk in layout and track design section. With an 8x4 board you are limited but you need something that allows those HST's to run.

Is it a leading locomotive that derails and does it derail on either setting of the turnout - straight or curved. Curved would be easier to understand. So if coaches are reversed through the turnout instead of a loco, what happens? It looks as if there is a baseboard join there -is there a corresponding join near the opposite turnout on the RHS?

No what I mean is the new download doesnt overwrite the earlier files, so you have more than one set; you then delete the earlier version manually

Am I right in thinking this simply downloads as a new set of files but doesn't automatically update?

You could do with track planning software such as Anyrail which has a free demo version. You need two turnouts and a cross-over or slip as shown below Drawing shows Streamline elements but Setrack can be used. I drew in OO but the principle is the same

You would, but you are cutting close to the tie bar and my experience trying that, admittedly without high quality tools, was not good. A related option is to have a shorter turnout in that position and again, solder short cut pieces to either element to close the gap.

Off scene or not the second diagram is better because the first diagram has a reverse curve going through 4-5-1. Just to be safe, its a quirk of anyrail that while all the track joins look to be in line where they show up as having a zigzag through the join it suggests everything is not in line, but in practice all you need to do is just click on each track element to 'wiggle' it and all the zigzags should be replaced with white circles. With the chosen lower layout everything should fit. If you needed to use the upper drawing for some reason then yes, you have to cut short pieces of rail and solder them into the fishplate of the crossover. Reducing the fishplate length may also be required.