RobinofLoxley

I posted elsewhere, but no-one has replied, asking what the spec is for the small screws that hold the slider and operating pin in place; I guess M2 cheesehead x 6mm, can anyone confirm please? (I have lost an entire bag of them somehow)

The space occupied by track in the original post seems to be about 190cm by 135cm, so 6'x4' - ish. There are track plans specifically for these kinds of space, or a smaller scale modelled, either N or TT. The board area is just large enough for reach-over to be a problem. In OO its possible to have a loop, the small area means that a double track main line is going to look pretty ridiculous, it cries out for a rural station regardless of era, with some facilities but with a central well for access as I have drawn it below. This is not very polished! As per my point about Anyrail, I used Streamline turnouts in order to have a doubleslip to save space and provide longer sidings on the 'goods' side. For corner track pieces setrack was used, minimum radius 2. Its hard to bend flexitrack that sharply, but for the odd length sections and the station flexi track was used (brown indicates section longer than a single track piece(91.5cm)). The station platform length is around 1M which would allow 2-3 coaches plus loco which i would consider plenty for this board size.

Instead of the Hornby software, have a look at Anyrail, which has a free version where a maximum of 50 track items can be used at one time, but crucially it has track libraries where any kind of track can be used.

Does anyone know the spec of the 3 screws on the slider? They are all the same. I had a pack but I think they have fallen down a gap in the loft boards, and I dont have any record of the spec. I would guess cheesehead M2 5mm but its just that, a guess

I have a z21 and use the app so I suppose i can do something similar then.

No thats very useful; obvious or not I have MP1's as well, plus a number of DR4018's. Are you saying that there is a 'Priority' output on the 8116 corresponding to signal set at red? This would be the odd number output I would guess?

I havent posted about it before but i was going to ask here about turnout setting as there seem to be some issues. I have also had a few random turnout moves that seem to be associated with operating shorts.

Cool, but watching trains go round wont sustain you for ever.

@ISW Can i just query something as to whether the image is flipped? At the entrance on the left the middle of the three tracks which i assume is the arrival side can only access half the sidings but the lower track where the slip is, the departure lines can all access the exit track. Deliberate?

An all lines access flexible system as per Harlequin's ideal would be hard to design and space heavy. Then if you have to turn locos in it, a turntable has to fit in as well. Then locos have to be able to run round as well. One way is that all lines come down to a single at each end, inside the yard. Tricky.

The particular correction to the track required by the latest plan is shown below

So you are suggesting that I should contact Bachmann directly?

As far as I know its possible to mix codes within N/peco -discussed recently in the thread I mentioned. What is different about streamline code turnouts is the angles, giving rise to a more streamlined look, and the smaller angles definitely help with stop-free running, even the small ones. I would use such turnouts in any plan I drew up. The long tunnel would have caused problems, even if it was a lift-off one; you can have a landscaped barrier with fiddle yard behind, plenty of people to advise about that. If we go back to the original plan, there are gaps where platforms could be but due to the drafting they wont work too well. There's plenty of room to work, so you could say how many platforms you are looking for - through/bay. There are sidings but not to any obvious plan - if you want goods you will need a headshunt but there wasnt one in the plan. Carriage sidings? Loco shed? Also do you have any real world inspiration for a station? Once you define your station type some should be forthcoming. Southern...

@benji18 it would help to know what kind of stock you have and era you are looking to model as that would help with layout suggestions. Otherwise you just get faults in your proposals pointed out with no balancing positive proposals. Also your plan is in Setrack - ,have you already bought track or could you change to code 55 for example?

Does that comment apply to N gauge? Never heard it before but you have a layout in N?

Check out the recent thread about the layout on a door, similar board size. The long tunnel is a waste of half the layout.

I've had this Engine for a while and its never given any trouble, then yesterday it jammed during ordinary light engine running, with the first main running wheel on one side having advanced further than the other side, so that the connecting rods on that side were out of alignment. This leads the mechansim to jam. As soon as saw it, I thought quartering problem, as I assumed that despite being a later model i would find some sort of split chassis mechanism when I removed the keeper plate. I have the spare parts 'In stock' to deal with that problem, but to my surprise when I removed the keeper plate there was a different mechanism at work. No plastic sections but a metal axle with a plastic collar on one side to provid the insulation break. No obvious sign of any specific feature that would allow the drive wheels to get out of synch, however the whole motion did seem somewhat loose. So Ive reassembled it and will test tomorrow, but Im expecting it to jam again, as I havent found the source of the problem. Is there something specific here, or a more general fault with the design, that just hasnt come to my attention before?

In order to utilise the yard more effectively, you need a double slip at each end to permit trains to terminate in the yard and if they exit the way they came in, to do so on the correct line, without needing a further set of cross-overs elsewhere. The left hand side of the arrangement is very straightforward, permitting arriving trains to use all tracks, and trains on the inside loop to reverse back out on the correct line. On the right hand side, trains arriving on the inside line can access all lines, and all but the two inside storage lines can access the outside line leaving, which is the correct one to be on. Other similar configurations can be created that allow access to any line going in or out, but the penalty is extra length of turnout required. Its also drawn to avoid reverse curves. Its by no means a finished drawing, its just to illustrate the principle

That feature is active if you look carefully

Theres a layout called Abington Parkway that can be found in layout topics that has a template for curved turnouts into a fiddle yard. Handle with care though. Also, if you need crossover lines they have to be integrated at an early stage. I would be with @TonyMayabout multiple lines, hard to imagine anything less interesting than a 4 track roundy. 2 track with stations allowing trains to pass will be a lot better.

Also if you place this layout so you have access only at one side, 1.2m is pushing it a bit for reaching stuff at the back, for example dealing with a derailment. Maybe you have long arms but check it.

In fact, the curve tool does work when a piece of flexi is connected but at one end only. In fact if you want a constant radius curve there are advantages to using Setrack pieces anyway. If you highlight a piece of setrack you will see that Any Rail displays the curve radius and angle. If you note the numbers and use them to create flextrack curves you will see how the process works. The 'Create Parallel Track' feature works in a similar way. Its useful for creating double tracks. It basically copies the profile of a piece of flexitrack to a specified location parallel to the original.

Its as good, knowing that you are familiar with Anyrail. Going back a step, Phil (@Harlequin) wanted so see track labels, probably to know what code track has been used. In some selections of track library parameters its obvious, with line drawing less so. I've got a couple of questions, that relate to how you reached this point, having set out to model Wood Green, now known as Alexandra Palace; Im not sure when it was renamed but someone will know; to me Wood Green suggests sixties or earlier. Some of the elements of the proposed plan are suggestive of the track outline shown in railmap online, with historic railways selected. https://www.RailMapOnline.com/UKIEMap.php?lat=51.60256&lng=-0.12564&zoom=17.0 However, with other parts of the proposed plan, there are major major deviations from what I would expect in a plan to model Wood Green as a roundy layout. The most significant is the location of the main station where actually Bowes Park might be. The other, and its related question, is that the tracks through the station that form the loop are therefore the Hertford North branch, which is double track. The roundy section is currently three loops. So it isnt a representation of the main line either. On the map of the real railway, the main and suburban lines disappear into a tunnel, which could be represented on the plan, before curving away unseen and emerging on the other side of the layout. The main yards North of the station can be represented. South of the station, I dont know, as there are many crossovers over an extended length of track, but in the context of what is a huge space in N , possible in my opinion to model.

I take it the picture is of a drawing, not of an Anyrail file?? I use Anyrail a lot and the format looks a bit strange. Asking as you can post the Anyrail file, if it is, direct into a posting here. You first have to go to File-Export- then save the file as a .jpg, exit the application or close the file, then you can use the choose files option, search for the file, and insert it. As things stand, as Phil says, the left hand side and top left corner can't be reached. The overpass on the LHS will be challenging but it is N gauge and the clearance required is less than for OO. Overall, this is a very large and challenging design; if you havent built a model railway before, extremely challenging. Did you have any thoughts as to how you would control and operate the layout? Given its size, and the number of trains that can be on it at any one time, and the possible operating movements, I would say that it would be better to operate it on DCC with the intention of having some automation. Have you thought about how you will construct the baseboards? You are going to need to plan that, because laying turnouts across baseboard joints is tricky, and if they will be motorised, the motor position has to be allowed for as well as the turnout. Its possible to purchase them, of course, at a price. My layout has 23, they take some building. What era are you intending to model? A lot of track planning is era-dependent. Answer these questions then some thought can be given to the track plan itself. .

Both are possible. I'm sure the curvature of that platform can be decreased with some work. It would be better to have the stations separated as far as possible as there cant be significant scenery breaks on the layout.