RobinofLoxley

Interesting exercise @Chimer in stuffing a corner. Platform length is a problem, which might be mitigated if you took out one or other of the relief lines; I'm not sure if they are actually there according to that picture. On a related subject,i was just looking at the plan I drew up and noticed that I had drawn it on a footprint of 2.95M square, when it should have been 2.95 x 3.77M, so I actually have 80cm to spare in the long direction. So theoretically I can increase platform length by that amount.

I would agree with this, part of the train looking to be appropriate size is the overall surroundings and part is the size of specific model items such as platforms. In this particular situation the 'straight' run behind the station is completely open but a train that is nearly half the room length at 1.5M is going to dominate the scene even if its slightly short as a prototype. Handy then that there's a photo with a 5-car train and it looks fine. As it happens I've opened up the platforms to 1.4M curving them in as per the prototype. On the plan I've drawn up the longest open run for an express is actually on the opposite side to the station. Its quite exposed.

@123* thanks for posting the drawing - you can see how far out you are from the rough in-your-head drawing to the real space required for Darlington station for example. I dont think the other bedroom is any better although it has a slightly longer perimeter the door position is worse, unless in either case the door can either be made to open outwards from the room or slide. Being a roundy you have to get inside to operate, would you do this by crawling under the structure or having a hinged section? Forgot to add - long tunnel, does it fit really? Plus it has to all be liftable for access. Also hides a major train for half the run?? Interesting to note in the photo a 5car HST approaching....

Thats a great photo thanks. I didnt realise the platforms curved like that. I have curved them (at the far end) out of necessity.

Very sensible John. Probably the worst scenario is having acquired stock, then having to bend everything else to fit that. I dont know when Darlo was last modernised, that will have a bearing on the options, if the modernsied station is to be the centrepiece

That drawing shows how hard it can be with quite typical room space in OO, to represent something that is predominantly straight when the circumstances require almost everything to be bent in some way in order for them to fit. And that drawing which follows the Traksy pattern exactly, doesnt even have the required length of bay platform. So I have done the bending - not a job for a beginner in Anyrail! Its also hard to represent junctions because the very name implies divergence. In this case the main line and the Saltburn line (is that the line of the original Stockton-Darlington??) diverge at 90 degrees and cant be represented, they have to be laid together in the round. This puts Thornaby station on the opposite side from Darlington, and ideally the yard section would be beyond, but there isnt really the necessary space. There's also the question how the trains operate from Darlington -Thornaby as Darlo platforms are bay so cant form a loop; so what i have done is create sidings 'beyond' Thornaby where DMU's can change tracks as though arriving from distance. The yard had to go alongside Thornaby, and being modern had to close at the end so that locos can escape (which is the pattern in the modern yard on Teesside as far as I could see on Railmapsonline). I left one open at A, which was put the specifically to hold an HST/Azuma/whatever to clear the main line. There is further room at B to create another fan of sidings, I havn't drawn them in. There would be a huge amount of fine tuning to do anyway, as the drawn layout is slightly larger one way than the dimensions given, and the door situation isn't detemined (the first question is always can it be reversed or made into a slider). Many tweaks would be needed to get the darlo station platforms into better proportions than shown. The list is endless.... Note - I later discovered that I had used the wrong room footprint, I carelessly used 2.95M x 2.95M. So it fits but doesn't use all the space. I have redrawn a correction but it needs more work and i wont do that if there's no interest..

Following from what @ISW said, @123* you have just over half the space. It will take some fitting in. What is your era, and can you be more precise about what you are hoping to run? In terms of stock that is. The door will be a pain - to get in you will need a lift out section or a duck under. Lift out is more difficult. Can you possibly sketch out the structure showing the different elements you want on a bit of paper?

I would leave that fixed curve as it is. Much harder to create a short section like that out of flexi. Each section that faces a turnout has to be set straight for about 3-4cm, leaving a much harder curve in the central section. Otherwise a kink may develop.

Its easily possible, and looks an improvement. That way two spurs are possible and dont look ridiculous. Considered as two bidirectional lines not inbound/outbound, definite echoes of widened lines.

One thing I dont understand about this is that, if you showed me one of those turnouts and asked if it was insulfrog, I would have said no, because there is no insulation gap between any of the v -shaped frog rails.

I dont know if its helpful but I've updated my Anyrail and lo and behold the missing turnouts appeared. So I replaced all the SL91 and 92 turnouts I used on the original plan (to save space of course) with the medium size U-1195/6 Bullhead turnouts. (I changed the slip but the dimensions are the same). There were consequences for the placement of some of the features, mainly the spur which was in the classic Minories position; it still could be but it would have to be shorter, tank engine short in fact, so I moved it. Given the direction of the loco release, it may now be simpler to move the released loco to the spur. One or two dimensions changed as well; one of the cassette positions got shorter, but as it is the plan provides for one longer cassette. To keep point motors away from the baseboard join, there are a couple of very small pieces of flexi to insert. With no spur at the top, I could extend the upper platform, and there is room to extend the lower one. However they were already long enough to hold a 2 car EMU, and a bit longer than the example of Westonmouth mentioned earlier. Extending them from v1 (in my world) wasnt necessary.

In that era the buildings would have been 'Exceedingly grimy' as Mr Kipling might have said. However that doesn't mean they have to be depicted as such.

My first view of CF today at Warley and was absolutely blown away, when i got to the front!! The view is correct, its devised to be displayed at the height it is. The track plan of this layout is beyond belief ingenious, fiddle yards especially included, and as for the model building, well what is there to say.

Lol. No copyright breach?? Yes I was kind of assuming that I have a defect in my Anyrail, as you could probably tell.

No I was just talking about the on-scene turnouts as distinct from the fiddle yard. In Code 75 Bullhead there's just the one turnout option according to my Anyrail, but if you use ordinary Streamline code 75 you have many more options. Which brings me to... Ive drawn a doodle in code 100 but I think all the same elements are available in 75. I took as a cue that photographing static scenes would be important. Hence the pattern with the parcels to the rear, and what would be onscene storage sidings front right, using a cassette for one or both concealed roads (behind the red line). Some fiddling involved to make sure the baseboard join is clear. The Minories type spur at the back isnt really needed for parking a loco, I thought maybe a derelict Utility Van converted to an office. The platforms should be long enough to hold a 2-car unit, and I would expect a partial platform canopy, already mentioned, to hide the platform length. Some aspects of the layout are bit cranky, access to the parcels platform for one, but others I think quite nice. Especially as arrive and depart together is possible.

Can I politely disagree? According to my version of Anyrail, it shows just one style of turnout and that is very long at 25.7cm, compared to the boards. It would be OK if you were having a BLT somewhere that was all about the atmosphere, but this is going to be a quite busy terminus as far as I can see. The result in your first attempt was that everything scales wrong - platforms too long, fiddle yard also too long.

What track code are you going to use Simon? I guess I know as it looks as if you have three setrack turnouts there. Code 100 but Setrack bits where usable to help with 'fit' Never considered a different scale for this, N or TT??

As the turnouts are going the same way you should be ok. On my old layout it was the crossing type arrangement with Setrack turnouts that caused me problems, fans never. This was OO though.

And that is just laid out on a table top. Looks like steel track too. Hey @GWR-fan do you have any idea how that lot was built, or was it just something you found... There's quite a bit of body and tender rocking, not surprising really.

You have done pretty well laying out a template for the whole layout. The tweaks needed to have a fiddle yard growing from either three or four tracks are straightforward, really. However transferring stock across running lines depending if there are three or four is a bit different. You have drawn one for three lines which works but is just a bit long. Below I have sketched out some things for discussion. If you want an all to all transfer on four lines, the two drawings done by @Chimer are the simplest (which usually means the best). They are just a bit lengthy, although there's plenty of room for them. They dont cut down to three easily, for that a different scheme might be needed. For transfer between fast and slow lines there are two patterns, depending if the tracks are SFFS or FFSS. It would be unusual to have transfer between two fast lines but it must happen. So on the left is a system for 3-track interchange; I only show 3x3 roads in the fiddle yard but a fourth can be generated at point A. The two options for iinter-line transfer are to the right. Pretty obvious. On the right is a four track system developed from the three. In both cases, the difference between the simplest proposal and these, is that its possible to split them at B, in which case half can be below the station and half above, attached to the fiddle yard approach in a way that has been mentioned already by other contributors. A small gap at B is a good thing anyway. Other than this I'm a bit stumped to understand what is different that we can do, compared to the OP. Lastly, I have drawn the fiddle yard lines more open than in the drawings by @Jabee. While you can close them right up, both in the drawings and on the layout, it gets very hard to manipulate stock by hand if things are too close together, and also some working length is lost as the track pathways merge earlier (having to allow clearance for the widest stock items, e.g. Hornby Castle.

Also WCML as far as Wolverton?

Except that the objections to three tracks are mainly that its not very prototypical. But then, how is the rest of the layout going to be? Personally I find it difficult that with a large and well appointed space that its going to be dedicated to trains circulating endlessly while something else is done. Its an area that many modellers would be pleased to have.

Well now im a bit stumped as to what the question is. The last one related to four line circulation but now it seems there will be three. On the previous thread im sure some ways to integrate crossings into the yard approach were mooted. @Jabee none of this is actually laid yet, right? I believe the suburban lines out of Melbourne are 3 line with a tidal flow central line

I dont know why the OP started a second thread. Its clear that the answer to this question depends on the fiddle yard track proposal. Where is it?

I failed to take any of that into account! However, in a summerhouse I cant see anything laid around the walls being viable. Lay on a board or two boards, lay on edge when not in use. I have cut the plan back so that the table top, which is what we are talking about, is about 7 x 4, which can be placed up against one short side leaving 18 inches front and back and about 2 feet at the side. Tight but its temporary in my view.