Jump to content
 

RobinofLoxley

Members
  • Posts

    1,523
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by RobinofLoxley

  1. There is a train just off on the LHS comprising 6 Mk2's, 2 locos and a tank wagon (??) and it would be hanging slightly out at both ends, but yes the 6 coaches look as if they would fit.
  2. Phil - I actually had a look on Raildar to understand the traffic movements (still a wip, its a beta version and I dont think the Oxford road part is working properly). I havent seen anything use those crossovers yet (Yes def not working yet) . I simply didnt think they were needed, and if you recall on the RHS it can be fitted but impinges on the possible lift out section. Fiddle yard - certainly yes, especially as i think the OP used 14' across in one drawing, plus I have left big margins on the edges, due to the scenery considerations that you mentioned.
  3. In keeping with @Harlequin's comments, those turnouts top right are probably superfluous. While in the real railway they might be relatively close to the station on the model they mean that trains are changing tracks up by the fiddle yard and could be running wrong line almost to the scenic break. Not a good look. Personally I think that the first drawing that you did @Danfilm007 was pretty good on the scenic side, just the short platforms. Later versions with odd shaped baseboards (some with the point motor positions right on the join) - asking for trouble. There was a problem with the basic fiddle yard structure as well. On-scene, trains could arrive from the right side into all platforms, and depart on the left but going the other way cant depart from the two lower platforms. That seems quite flexible to me. Bearing in mind previous comments I have made, Ive drawn a doodle below. Platform length is about 1.8M. All drawn in code 75 except the RH top corner where I used setrack to show the curvature required, which is otherwise hard to get. Plenty of space left around the short sides. The main island platform is 15cm clear width which you need. Red lines show possible limits of scenic section. The main thing is that the curved turnout is your friend on more compact layouts. I have a terminus station on my layout accessed exclusively through them and the curve is very gentle, they look great and give no operating problems (so far, lol) but if you have 3 or 4 back to back you soon get round the corner. So rather than tilt the station, Im hoping the slightly curved platforms will give the required look.
  4. Looks like Sydney opera house I bet the acoustics are terrible - you probably cant hear the train delayed announcements
  5. The alternative is fit shaped pieces into the corners, cut with a jigsaw, to round the corners. An almost indispensable asset in layout making.
  6. Hasn't a lot of dead space now appeared at the bottom? I think people were talking about more drastic curvature of the platforms to enable the station to be compressed into a corner. The question then is, as with moving the bay, is whether its any longer what you were choosing to model.
  7. There's another thread on Oxford Road in N gauge as well
  8. Quite right about the platform lengths. Looking at the plan again I would say there is scope to extend platforms both ends but i dont know what that does to the overall geometry of the station itself
  9. You ought to start the outer fiddle yard lines with curved turnouts to eliminate the reverse curves and maybe lengthen some of the storage roads. The scenic section is simple and good; I'm sure there must be a way to tilt the station or some of the approach trackwork so that it doesn't always run parallel to the walls.
  10. Apart from anything else Hornby aren't involved in N, hardly in O, so why would they be unable to manage development in a second scale?
  11. generally I thought that the throat and fiddle yard approaches could both be made more compact so having had a look I posted the doodle below. The main thing to note is that as you need Tillig elements, the angles are different and so is the track spacing, which is why @moawkwrd you are showing overlaps at certain points in your plans. Basically for a given area you have to use all Tillig once you start (OK a single siding turnout maybe), I dont know abut the connectivity with peco flexi which is the other thing that I used. Flying Pig was right about the slip, its essential. I put in a second one at the top, although not essential it saves space at the expense of a reverse curve into the top sidings. For the yard approach, you had a lot of options for changing tracks on the plans, that could be avoided if you put a double slip in. The turnouts are only needed if you need to maintain the illusion of a 2 track road disappearing into the distance.
  12. I think there is some duplication of routes in the station throat.
  13. To access the fiddle yard you have to run wrong line out of almost all the platforms. If youre happy with that, for example planning to put a bridge or other scenic break in front to conceal what is happening, ok. And all changed, as if by magic....
  14. I have phone only for the next few days but ill do my best. The advice to trace what happens as the trains move is sound so here we go. Start on the outer clockwise loop with a goods train, loco first. Its going to the sidings off turnout 11 and can to get there it can cross to the inside via turnout 2 or 3 then reverse into the sidings, park the goods train and is free to pull wagons back out, or use the inner loop going clockwise to reach Turnout 14 where it can reverse onto the anticlockwise loop or continue on. Eventually it comes to 23 and being loco first can reverse into any siding. If you continue further you come to 1 you are clearly wrong road but cant cross to the outer loop so you have to reverse finally crossing back onto the outer loop at 9/10. Next put the train loco first on the anticlockwise loop. Apart from crossing onto the outer clockwise loop its only move is towards the sidings through 1, (reversing through 4 is also possible but a bit odd), loco first this time which is why you need the escapes if you use the sidings. Actually it could be any loco doing this so the heads must be able to take the longest loco plus a bit of wiggle room. Otherwise the train goes to the station then on to 14 where it can rejoin the anticlockwise loop or go back round the inside again. Locos van therefore get to the sheds running light engine so thats ok. So what we found is that the crossings from outside to inside are actually duplicates - different routing but same outcome, so 2 and 12 and the crossover between can be removed. It would be easier to operate if the other cross- over was a slip as per my plan. The last item is the location of 1 and its been suggested more than once that this is relocated to the end of 11 to create three continuous loops. For the cross -overs the move that would be made would be to reverse direction after crossing, never continuing wrong line. the preferred place would be at 9/10 where the turnouts are 'trailing'. If there was a single slip between 3 and 13 that will work as a crossover as well. I haven't finished but have to stop at this point.
  15. I have been incubating a proposal but never posted as the original was evolving so fast, but just to provide a bit of contrast and show some alternatives, here goes. I'm also alarmed that the baseboard which is a hell of a risk is creeping larger and heavier all the time to deal with structural troubles in the original proposal. I have kept to the original dimensions - usually you have to make a plan fit the available space, its a bit unusual to change the space to fit the layout, tbh. So I have a different approach to having a goods yard, closer to reality, depending a bit on the time of the location. The goods yard shunts both ways, so a loco is never trapped by dead ends. Access is from either line, through the single slip, so @Cliff M you will note that the width of the layout is now adjustable as the turnout sequence is not the full width. Access from the clockwise outer loop is by reversing through the turnout and over the slip. Ive also offered an alternative by having the second loop working more as a branch line with terminal features; I left the loop sidings in place although I would probably put a headshunt in that one as well. Maybe that line should have a run-around in the station but I havn't put that in. All with approx setrack clearances so I know there can't be any clashes on the curves. I left the template I use to check spacings when working freehand, on the plan.
  16. Ok. I used the scales on one of your earlier efforts to judge that, but the layout is evolving rather fast. Probably explains also why an outline plan I've drawn didnt fit as well.
  17. For what its worth you could route the fiddle yard through a single tillig double slip; bringing both arrival and depature tracks through it. It becomes a bottleneck but the fiddle yard itself becomes very simple to plan out. The slip would be in the fidddle yard and concealed by appropriate means. Whether you like @Chimer's plan or not, it shows you that on 2' wide boards you have a massive space (relatively speaking) either side of the terminus platforms and also in the corner space created by turning the main lines through 90 degrees. What to do with those? Scenery? And that was in OO; in TT its more obvious still. You might ant to cut the board sizes down of course.
  18. Theres a layout in progress, recent thread started by Ben Atkinson, which is an L shaped restricted space layout in N gauge.
  19. Checking on Anyrail I would say that the length of the spacing straight required between two streamline turnouts is 8cm. I checked it for SLE91/2 not for any other size. That brings the track separation to Setrack standard. Where you have put in a spacer between turnouts 5 and 6, OK, a bit small for me but you are cramped for space! However just checking that leaving the same spacer out between 4 and 3 etc was intentional, because it will lead to the curved sections slowly diverging rather than being parallel. You can see on your last post, while it isnt obvious, that the track joins dont line up as they should as explained by @Dungrange between turnouts 5/6 and 3/4, same both sides. Also, those platforms - 10 cm only and 5cm. FWIW I have a plan with 2 tracks separated with a 15 cm wide island platform based on your footprint and it doesnt fit - a work in progress.
  20. The spacing trumps everything. It doesnt work. Trying to address issues inside the loops while pretending the spacing problem isn't there, is not helpful.
  21. Its clear every time that a smaller scale allows more stuff to fit in a limited space. The TT layout is OK, except that as drawn traffic on the departures line cant reach the drawn half of the sidings except by going wrong line, while the OO layout has many faults at the fiddle yard end, but thats not a reason by itself to choose TT. Personally I wouldnt choose to have the branch I would have a goods yard. You cant flip the plan as you have done, (well you can but its no longer correct). You have mentioned rolling stock from a variety of eras, probably because that's how TT is going to evolve, Hornby can't make a huge range all at once. But the Minories concept wasn't about Mainline locos really. If you use those you have to turn them by hand which might get a bit boring, or annoying. Even blue diesels would have to be lifted off and placed on the opposite end of a rake of coaches. Is there any sign of a Fairburn tank or similar in TT? AS far as planning for baseboards and turnouts is concerned, its where the point motor will be located thats the most important consideration. You might also consider if you can include a cassette type approach for exchanging stock.
  22. Three way turnouts may appear expensive but they replace two standard ones while occupying the same space more or less as a single turnout. They can be really useful. Platforms take up quite a bit of space though; where is the station? It would be unusual not to have one as they provide a reference point. There are one or two places where you can use a section of flexitrack, curved to shape instead of small curves combined with straights.
  23. This may be true but Cliff has nevertheless come a long way with his ideas very quickly. Equally, the space is still fairly restricted.
  24. I have 2mm foam used by builders as a flooring leveller. It reduces noise levels and cushions the track slightly. Its actually not quite thick enough to give the correct track height. The advantage is that I can put in a second layer, for example in gradient transitions, which seems to work well. I pin track, by drilling 1mm holes in the middle of sleepers through to the baseboard and push the pins through with my finger to avoid distorting the sleepers.
×
×
  • Create New...