RobinofLoxley

You can also see that a vast proportion of the beach visitors haven't moved very far at all from the station exit. And its said that aversion to walking further than you can throw a lump of coal is a modern phenomenon.

Subject to checking, as i have only just done it, but basically I interchanged the position of two turnouts on the long sequence, but based on my copy of that sequence, into Anyrail. Now I edited the original without saving a copy as in my opinion the edit was superior on the criteria I gave. (Never thinking someone might ask for the 2 versions, lol). The interchange actually shortened the number of turnouts on the long sequence by one. I also looked at the distance on the original plan drawing from the first turnout (The Minories 'Eye' end) and the last which is the headshunt turnout, compared to the platform track lengths. Even comparing the distance from the eye to the last platform turnout the length seemed too great in proportion, to me at least, but better after my changes. That was without changing the turnouts from long to medium, where that was an option, which would have got about 15cm more off the length. @simon bAdded the plan this morning. The difference is that the turnout for P1/P2 is off the main sequence; the track length to P2/P3 is shortened as a result. I used long turnouts, because when curved turnouts are used as they are to 'turn' the plan, they need the long ones to complement them. To be honest I think that @Chimer of this parish drafted something like this about 50 pages of thread previously......

The funny thing is that having mocked it up in Anyrail, as i tend to do to give myself a ready made library of classic layouts, I found that the throat section was over long and the platform roads laid out so that there would be some gaps between the likely end of a platform and the first turnout, that didnt sit so well with the idea of a compact layout. It's possible to compress things substantilally without losing anything of the flow, while still using longer spec turnouts on the main lines. This could be important if space is at a premium, as it usually is.

A number of occasions I have advocated setrack curves for confined spaces, so much easier to lay. I have a dumbbell shape layout and both ends are done with many setrack curves. However the track spacing can be an issue depending what other track is being used. On the suggestion below I managed to use all Streamline turnouts without causing any spacing issues. This plan was edited from another similar situation, the idea is to provide real shunting possibilities not simply some spurs that arent that useful. There is a single R1 curve that I can probably get rid of. Most of the flexi sections are siding ends where the curves arent critical. The Streamline turnouts are a lot easier to negotiate than setrack ones, although as there arent any paired turnouts on the latest version, it's may not be an issue anyway.

Just as a minor point i doubt that the trouble at A mentioned above wont be resolved in the way suggested. The straight has to be cut. Optimising inevitably will require some use of flexitrack in my opinion

I admire the drafting of the track plan part. Sometimes it isnt clear what kind of turnout is used in a particular location, adds to the fun of trying to draft it in Anyrail. The appearance is very reminiscent of the original Minories plan; drwing style, paper, etc...

Its a funny thing but a few times when folk have requested a layout design by default in OO, but in a fairly restricted space, for example a typical spare room maybe 11' x 8', that somebody checks that they wouldnt like to model in N instead, or even these days in TT. With this size of room, I would say that its the opposite, that modelling in N might be considered somewhat ambitious unless the idea is to leave significant chunks as open countryside - for me that will happen by default, because as has already been pointed out, to populate a space this size with buildings would take a lifetime. Or more likely, the scenery will never get finished. From the point of view of layout planning, its also quite difficult. A typical feature such a TMD if were in the diesel era can be fitted in a space of 1m x 0.5M in N gauge, stations are smaller, leaving large in-between spaces. I find it a bit odd just pasting length after length of flexi track into a plan to the point where I can't do it, so I wouldn't even try and draft something.

comment deleted

@Windhawk I think those layouts are impossibly ambitious. Where you have baseboard joins, and track crossing, the safest is plain track crossing at right angles Then plain track at a slight angle, getting more tricky. As for gradients...

Granted its a schematic but I have the room dimension as 4M - just over 13'. I think its a very tricky space to plan a layout for.

Just to add to what @The Johnster has already said, by means of a diagram. A dumbbell shape is almost inevitable in the available space, so I have traced out how that fits using Peco code 80 Setrack, with the loops constructed from third radius Setrack curves. They fit with a small amount of room in the smaller alcove, plus accommodating the required reverse curve to get across the chimney breast section with straight track joins. I think any other approach is asking for trouble as its been specified, understandably, that the sections might have to come out, and indeed might well be assembled elsewhere I would imagine. Such a structure does leave a fair amount of space in both loops for sidings and a goods yard, which should be able to provide the second operator interest. Those large interior corner spaces offer scope for scenery. The Heights of Abraham cable car anyone?

So this is a living room that really will be occupied daily, not a spare room with occasional occupancy? Just curious but could well affect any suggestions. The 2 -alcove setup is much better for modelling.

This is usual when the LH turnout is a small Streamline sl91 or sl92. I had to cut the tie bar ends off in order to get the fan to work.

Just came across this thread while doing research. Just to point out the obvious, the 'weight' in g per sq metre of the folding boxboard used for cereal cartons has probably halved in 40 years and many of the physical properties bar those associated with the printed surface maybe even more. I wouldn't use many of today's boards without laminating them

Hi All, I'm currently gestating a project for next winter that might become an exhibition layout. The dimensions are quite restricted, my choice, and wont be changed, but I want to tap into experience of building for example the Boilerhouse and factory, which is Metcalfe PO284. From the drawings onn their site its hard to be sure to what extent the building can be assembled differently to how its shown, as it looks as if it consists of a number of different elements assembled into a whole. What i cant tell is where the elements meet, are there 2 solid walls back to back or does the plan leave an open space or spaces where the joins are. Same applies to PO283. In the diagram, each square is 20cm, which is the width of the project - think Lack plank, but it isnt of course. I have a through track on the line A-A, the turnouts and track above are just there to explain the location of A-A, they arent there. Below is a siding which in the space B-B will be straight. I want to place buildings so that they block direct view of A-A so that I can exchange stock there (or possible place cassettes), while having a platform section at the front, as PO283 does, that aligns with the siding track. PO283 doesnt quite seem to fit in the space, which seems to be about 75mm. I have therefore considered using PO284 and running the track A-A through the factory, and reorganising the remainder of the kit or kits. I didnt particularly want to chop it up as that hasn't gone well in the past! I need the building length to be approx 70cm in total. Any thoughts? Robin

Build the old one. Far more operational interest.

Just remember that the bays both ends have to do that. Recently there was a thread about Darlington, here, which has a single ended bay, but fitting it into the available space. Personally i would say that proposal is too symmetrical. That might be how it is, but there arent many operating variations compared to Oxford Road.

I dont think tighter curves are involved really. A shorter shunter wont have a huge impact either. If you had short wagons that might lead to a complete re-design as you would be thinking about shunting a set of wagons at once - all into the headshunt then distributed afterwards.

Been following this with interest - restricted space puzzles are always challenging. The original proposal was very good I thought bar the single track at the front. A couple of other things I thought problematic were -The Y turnout. Having to cater for the 'half' angle made the track layout around it look a bit un-natural. -Having a loco available but not being able to fit it on or having any possible movements for it -the use of medium size turnouts and later a slip; certainly the slip can be a space saver but it didnt seem right in the location to me. The extra length for the longer turnouts could be ill-afforded, which is why I havnt used any in my little suggestion below. All the spurs are longer than 13" except of one on the left, where I see the spur only used for a loco or single wagon but not both together. No direct run-around, so it isnt prototypical I suppose, but I thought it might be fun...

Hello Matias, One question - the layouts you have drawn have a problem as they require a train to leave the modelled scene as far as I can see. Do you have space for anything that can be attached to one end of the shelf, a cassette to take a train leaving the scene? This has a big impact on what can be done.

This topic should be moved to layout topics now its not a track plan issue any longer. ? @AY Mod

I have reservations about this owing to the fact that all the fiddle yard roads have a degree of curve that will be challenging to lay and build on several fronts. If you are placing stock on a slightly curved track, with little free space between tracks, thats more fiddly to do than with straight tracks. Also the locations of the transition from scenic to fiddle yard are now a long way down the plan sides, do you really want so much of the plan area to be walled off? The fiddle yard plan is ingenious but for me it belongs in the realms of a nice design on paper only.

Docks but no water? Why not lose that unconnected track at the front and make it a dockside? To become more of a focal point for goods movements the other tracks would have to be shifted a bit but dock to warehouses would be possible. Look up threads by @Schooner who has a big interest in this

Do you aspire to a permanent bond or one that can be released?

Bear in mind that its the shorter dimension that usually determines what you can do; if you think about yout 6x4, if it was 8x4 mostly you would have longer straights along the long side. Later the long side takes over as the important one, when the dimensions get a bit bigger.