ianly

Thanks for your comments and suggestions, Paul. Much appreciated. The answer to your question regarding the curve radius is below. The software is Railmodeller Pro (Mac only). Unfortunately, freehand or point-to-point curves such as those linking the turnouts in the storage yard are not displayed by the software. The two that you mention in the central lines are between 20 and 21 inch. The rest are approximately 24 inch. As you suggest, I can improve the two that are tight by reducing the length of the straights at each end to one inch, but I can't omit them altogether as the throw bars of adjacent turnouts clash. Inserting these short lengths of track is the only way I could think of to avoid adjacent turnouts clashing. Prior to the forum move and loss of images and photos I was often possible to find helpful examples in other layouts. Now?

Peco Code 75 Streamline

I appreciate the time you've taken to put above together, and yes, I had considered using a gradient to a lower storage level but decided against. That being said, at some point in the future, I may use the 12' by 2' area directly above the storage lines for an end-to-end layout. This would be placed high enough not to foul or prevent easy access to the trains in the storage area below. The two layouts would not be linked. At the risk of going even further off topic; the track plan that I included in my original post is a simplified diagrammatic version of one that had been worked up a few years back in the Layout & Track Design forum. Unfortunately, it along with others were lost when the forum moved. Therefore, I’ve included a copy below with my thinking of how blocks would be configured. The earlier plan is operationally very similar to above and is a loose representation of Castle Cary and the line to Froome at Blatchbridge. The latter only being included to give access/egress to a hidden DMU storage area. More recently, I reworked the plan of the main storage area to provide dedicated bi-directional lines rather than having trains criss-crossing the storage lines. My thinking being that running the DMUs into one of the bi-directional storage lines would simplify operation, and eliminate the need for the turn-out combination shown on right side of the original plan. That may be a simplification too far though.

Thanks for the information regarding the inclusion of feedbacks for the turnouts associated with the storage lanes. All turnouts will have their own pair of feeds from the track bus in any case. However, I'm not clear on whether each needs to have its own independent detector or that they can be grouped with a single detector as denoted in attached diagram of the turnout fan. That is, each of the turnouts in the blue group can share a single detector, etc.

I’m in the process of constructing a model railway in a dedicated 12’ by 10’ room. Locos and rolling stock are a mix of passenger and freight that has recently or currently runs on UK mainline and branch lines. The track plan, albeit compressed, is based on a real location, and I would prefer not to alter it too much. My intention is that the layout be computer controlled with iTrain being the software that I’m considering at present. The command station is a Z21 (Black), turnouts are DCCconcepts IP digital with Yamorc (current sensing) occupancy detection. I hope to commence track laying shortly, but before doing so, would like to be sure that I’m heading in the right direction when it comes to splitting the layout into blocks. To this end, I’ve attached a track plan showing my current thinking. The track plan has been annotated to show train directions, storage area, station area, etc. I’ve also coloured the tracks to represent the blocks. Not ever having done anything like this before, it’s my best guess based on the information I’ve gathered here in the forum and YouTube. The ‘Hidden Storage’ area is split into 3 groups of 4 tracks, with the inner 4 holding trains going anti-clockwise, the middle 4 holding bi-directional trains, and the outer 4 tracks holding trains going clockwise. All of the tracks in this area can hold my longest trains. Likewise, all of the tracks coloured red, green, purple, yellow, orange and brown are long enough to hold the trains that I intend to run on them. The pink coloured track is borderline. Unfortunately, the blue coloured tracks are not long enough to hold my longest trains. None of the turnouts or short lengths of track between them are included in blocks. Operationally, some passenger trains will stop at the mainline station platforms while others and freight trains will pass through. Shorter trains (2 car DMUs) can only exit the branch line using the turnouts on the right side of the track plan. However, trains can enter the branch line using the turnouts on either the left or right side of the track plan. Now, a few questions. 1. Is what I’ve drawn workable or what changes to the block arrangements would be needed to make it so? 2. Can the issues that make the plan unworkable be solved in software rather than altering the block arrangements? 3. Would it be beneficial to provide 2 sensors for each of the storage and station blocks?

Interesting idea and thanks for suggesting. Unfortunately, it seems to loose one loop in clockwise direction and two in anticlockwise. It also shortens two loops in clockwise direction. Nevertheless, a slightly different approach gets me to a similar place on right side without loosing or significantly shortening any loops. The left side looks to be more difficult, and since bi-directional running is a bonus rather than a necessity I think I may leave it as is, especially as there are now 41 turnouts shown on the plan. My current plan is to use DCCconcepts Cobalt-IP slow digital point motors, which translates to approximately £750.

Thanks, Mike and Zomboid, both look like excellent suggestions. Hopefully, below plan is the correct interpretation. I've also added the crossover that JDW suggested.

Thanks for the suggestion JDW. Placing a crossover between the up/down lanes is relatively easy. While it's only two roads theres enough for up to four DMUs. The other dedicated DMU storage also helps.

Again, thanks for feedback. Hopefully, I haven't misunderstood same. The main changes from last nights plan are: Increased spacing between roads in storage area to 48mm and shortened four roads in each direction by 100mm. Doing so means that only one road in anti-clockwise group has a curve radius less than 610mm between the last curved turnout and straight. Most are greater than 610mm. Radius of curves at start and end of storage area are 610mm or greater. The right hand crossover has been pulled fully into the scenic area to create space for a left hand turnout giving access to two hidden DMU storage roads. My logic here being that some DMUs are going to / coming from a different location than the others trains. It also avoids stacking DMUs in one storage road. For now, the plan shows the turnout half in/out of storage area but this may change. The crossover will be disguised as described by Simon (Flying Pig). The branch line in front of the hidden storage area is scenic up to the red line to left of three-way turnout. I've added appropriate text and a red line to indicate same. Note that the tightest curve radius in scenic area is 762mm, but most are much greater than this.

I didn't realise how tight the curves leading on to the curved turnouts had become. However, having just checked I see that the curve on the outer track has 19 inch radius and on inner track it's 17 inch. If possible, some guidance on a realistic minimum radius into a streamline curved turnout would be helpful as I suspect a couple of others in storage yards might also be a bit tight Apologies, I misread your post.

Thanks for the great feedback. How to deal with the crossovers facilitating bi-directional train movement from the storage roads has been exercising me since I first added them to the plan a week or so back. I even mentioned that the road bridges and crossovers would need to be repositioned/realigned when I described yesterdays plan. So, it no surprise that they are identified as needing further work. I've not found a way to move the left side bi-directional crossovers off scene, at least not without reducing the length of the storage roads. Therefore, I'm satisfied that the location of cross-overs on left side remains as previously shown. On the right side, I've made a few tweaks that have allowed me to move the crossover slightly closer to the curved turnouts in the storage area. Additionally, the road over-bridge has been replaced with a line to represent a scenic break that effectively hides the majority of the crossover. I've also moved the bridge over the road/river to create more space between it and the crossover. Unfortunately, I'm struggling a bit to visualise the form that the scenic break will take. A tunnel portal at end of a short cutting is one thought. If anyone can point me to possible examples that would be appreciated. BTW, I haven't ignored Zomboid's suggestion of dead end sidings for storing the DMUs originating from the branch line. It's just that I think adding the turnout to facilitate same would mean that the cross-overs would need to move even further from the storage roads. Anyway, I'm fairly confident that I can accommodate up to three 2-car DMU's in any of the storage roads. Again, thanks for all your comments and suggestions.

Thanks all, for your thoughts and suggestions, especially those relating to the option with station placed across top of plan. The consensus seems to be that the plan that placed the station on the left was better, and I tend to agree. My preference is for scheduling/watching the trains go by rather than shunting, and this had a bearing on the type of station best suited to this type of operation. As I mentioned a week or so back, the plan is a 'very' loose representation 'Castle Cary'. As a junction station, I think it provides scope for some interesting train movements, and with the FGW/GWR stock I already have should allow for an interesting variety of liveries stoping and passing through. I've also found a few relatively recent videos on Youtube that show 'Arriva Cross Country' diverts. The diverts don't appear to be too common, but that doesn't prevent me from stretching reality a little. There isn't a huge amount of freight going through the real location. For example, ballast trains between Westbury and Fairfield can be seen on at least one occasion most days of the week (Realtime Trains shows at least one each day this week). Likewise, Network Rail Engineering trains are not uncommon. Still with freight, I've noted that intermodal container trains don't appear to use this line. I suspect that this may well be where I apply rule 1. The main changes from my previous plan with station on left side are: The redundant sidings have been reworked. At this point, I'm not sure how or even if I'll put them to use. However, one idea being a DMU siding similar to Westbury. The hidden DMU sidings on branch line at bottom right have also been reworked and extended. I also added another siding. While I haven't shown any changes to the over bridges, I expect they'll need to be repositioned/realigned to hide the crossings. If it doesn't work out as I hope or I get bored, I'll rip it up and start again.

I spent time yesterday evening adjusting the plan in line with Chimer's suggestion of placing the station across the top section of the plan. Doing so allowed me to moved the old goods yards siding on west side of station more into view. However, I've dropped the the siding and runaround loop on east side for time being. Likewise the bridge over river or road on far right of plan. The main line and branch lines sections of the station are based on a 100 inch radius with the curves on either side being 36 inch radius. The old goods yard siding has a curve of approx 22 inch radius. Is this plan worth further attention or should I continue with the last?

In reality, the branch line and the redundant siding are relatively straight and parallel to each other. Ideally, I would like to achieve something similar or at least not as contrived as I've shown in attached plan. Having the FY crossovers off scene would be great. Sadly, I just couldn't get it to work. I suspect trying to maintain the length of the FY straights was/is what limits scope for moving the crossovers off scene. If I shortened the straights anymore, then some trains will be partially parked on a curve, which may result in having to increase space between roads. I've moved the siding turnout up a bit using curved point and moved it another inch or so from the wall. However, doing so has tightened the platform curve slightly, and not sure that I like how it has turned out. I know I'm under using the NW corner but other for some buildings and car park not seeing how else to use it. Yes, way too close. I'll need to clean my spectacles ;-) I've moved it further from the wall and also shortened to something more realistic. Thanks for the Little Muddle tip, which certainly helps create the illusion of more space beyond the bridge. I'll definitely keep it in mind. Thanks, gain for your comments and suggestions.

Bryant, Thanks for your time and effort drafting above. My initial reaction was that 9 roads isn't enough, but then realised that you were including the curve within the overall length. Your suggestion re full length trains probably wouldn't work for me as the overall size of my proposed layout is such that I don't think full length trains would look particularly convincing. Fortunately, GWR were testing the shorter HSTs as far back as April/May 2018, which is a good enough excuse for me to run the 2+4 sets. The longer roads (>11ft) you've shown would allow for storing two 2+4 HSTs or an 2+4 HST and a 5 car 800 IET. However, only one of these longer roads is bidirectional. I could use one of the other to store three or four car DMUs, but this this still leaves one. I hate giving up so easily on your idea though. Ian

Chris, I'm not sure I understand exactly where you refer to re the abandoned goods yard. I've already shown the existing siding and head shunt between end of storage loops and station. I've seen videos were Network Rail have a Windhoff MPV parked up there. I know there is an 'abandoned' siding with runaround loop leading off the branch that then runs parallel with main lines for around 250 metres. I believe that's what Phil mentioned in one of his posts. These are quite visible on Google Maps, albeit quite overgrown as you move east from the branch to mainline crossover. As a little cameo scene, I toyed with the idea of parking up an a few Turbot ballast wagons with ballast heap alongside but haven't pursued it any further. BTW, if you have a look at Castle Cary on Raildar you'll see what I'm referring to above http://raildar.co.uk/map/CLC Thanks, again for you comments.

Again, thanks for all the feedback and suggestions, they’re much appreciated. I think below plan addresses the main issue identified with the one I uploaded on 22 July. The storage loops have been shortened slightly, although the outermost remains longer than the others in order that it can accommodate my longest rain on straight section of track. Most, if not all, are at least 4thradius. Crossovers to facilitate bi-directional train movement have been incorporated at either end of the storage loops. That being said, I’m a tad concerned that I may have over complicated things by including them on station side of plan. I’ll hide both sets as best I can with an overbridge or tunnel, although suspending reality for a second or so might also be required. The crossing and left turnout that provided branch line to outer main line has been replaced as per The Station Masters suggestion. Hopefully, I’ve not misunderstood. The majority of main-line station platform is curved at 60-inch radius. The branch line platform is slightly tighter but will only be used for 2-car DMUs. Thanks Ian

Thanks for taking the time draw this up, Chris. While it provides bidirectional access I think it's a tad complicated (for me anyway) compared to Harlequin's suggestion of crossovers where the storage loops link to the main lines. Yes, they take up a little additional space, but with a bit of work to the storage loops (again suggested by Harlequin) I've managed to fit them in but may reduce to one set. I had to reduce the length of the storage loops (except for the outermost) to 74 inches (1880mm), which has also enabled me to ease the overly tighter curves into/out of the storage area. The tightest is now just slightly less than 4th radius. Also, keeping the length of the straight section of the storage loops to not less than 74 inches means that I can store all but one train in the straight section of 11 loops. The remaining loop is also long enough to store my longest train on a straight section. Centre to centre, the straight sections of track in the storage area are spaced at a fraction under 44mm. Next task is easing the station curve. I suspect this will prove more difficult than the storage loops. Ian

My arrangement is 12' x 4' but if it can be reduced to 12' x 3' that would be ideal. Looking forward to what you come up with.

Thanks, all for the excellent feedback. Also, apologies for not being as clear as I should have been regarding stock that I've already acquired. I've addressed this and some of the other comments below. In terms of bi-directional trains, I have four 2+4 HSS sets, a 2+3 800 IET, three 2-car DMUs and one 1-car DMU. Obviously, the HSTs aren't prototypical with Castle Cary but they were/are further west. In this regard, I think I'll apply Rule 1. As for the HST Power cars, they're all GWR green, albeit with different names, numbers, etc. On the other hand, the coaches can be any mix of GWR green or FGW neon blue that I choose. So, in terms of livery I can run four different HSTs, and all would prototypical. The same applies to the four DMUs. As such, I don't need to run them in reverse, but it does seems like an idea worth investigating. I had used the slip to save space. However, the suggestion to change same to trailing crossover on main lines and link to the branch is one I will adopt. Each straight section in storage loops is 80 inches or 2032 mm. My longest train is 78 inches or 1980 mm but most are less. Therefore, I could park the longest train part way round a bend and make the loops shorter. However, when originally drafting the plan I found that shorter loops made it more difficult to align the curved turnouts. Reducing to five lanes in each direction works much easier but that reduces the variation that another two two trains would give. I'll need to give this a bit more thought before doing anything so rash. Unfortunately, Chimer's suggested method of shortening the storage loops won't work. First, I've planned for twelve loops to maximise the stock on the layout, and secondly, the schematic is 1300mm long excluding the curves onto the loops. Unless I'm missing something, this approach would take up a lot more space than I have available. The curved station is something that I'd like fix. As for Chimers suggestion, I've been there on page one of this thread, albeit with four lines, and don't like it. Fortunately, there are other options (e.g Burngullow Lane) https://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/137733-burngullow-lane/ Again, thanks for your comments. Ian

For various reasons I had to park developing a track plan until a few weeks back. Nevertheless, I have been keeping a close eye on some of the ongoing projects of other forum members, especially those of a similar size to that I have available (i.e. 3.6 by 3 metres or 12ft by 9ft 10in in old money). Based on some of the comments made about my earlier ideas and repeated in multiple other threads, i've decided that inclines/declines and low level storage are probably best avoided. As such, scenic and storage areas will be on the same level. Since I'd much prefer to keep storage off scene, it will be for fixed formations (6 lanes for each direction). With appropriate automation I think I can achieve a reasonable amount of variation and interest with the 12 - 14 trains that I can store. My original plan to incorporate a heritage station is no more. Likewise, the track plans I'd shared previously. Also, since my era (2017 onwards) and geographic region (GWR) had already been decided upon I've purchased some of the locos and rolling stock (e.g. DMUs, 2+4 HSTs with mix of FGW and GWR liveries, 800 IET, Class 66's for stone trains, etc). Some explanation on the new track plan. Running length in scenic area is approximately 21ft The plan is a 'very' loose representation Castle Cary as I think it provides scope for some interesting train movements. However, I am definitely not modelling Castle Cary. I've curved the station around a corner of the baseboard to maximise running length in scenic area. There is scope for platforms to be approximately 72 inches in length, which is sufficient for 2+4 HST and 800 IET The main lines through the station use curves with approximately 45 inch radius. The line indicated as a branch has a slightly tighter radius, but is still in excess of 40 inches. The other curves in scenic area are at least 36 inch radius. I plan to use PECO Code 75 concrete sleeper track in scenic area and Code 100 in storage area (only because I have a box of 25 lengths). The turnouts used in storage area are Code 100 curved long radius with Code 100 to 75 transition pieces were same interface with track in scenic area. Any opinions on the mix of Code 75 and 100 would be welcome. The main storage area will be located behind a lightweight removable panel that incorporates a back-scene image. I've shown the branch line ending with a hidden area for a One and Two-car DMU. Whether this created as 'cutting' or is routed into the main storage area via a tunnel portal is still to be decided. The DMU's may shuttle back and forth to station or onto the main line. I expect that some form of automation (e.g. DCCconcept's Digital Shuttle) will be used here. The scenic section between the over bridge and tunnel portal on right side of plan may end up with a viaduct or bridge over a river. The baseboards will, for the most part, be flat. However, I may drop some sections of the baseboard frontage to add more scenic interest. How and with what are still to be decided. Any ideas would be welcome. Hopefully, above explains my ideas, and happy to answer any questions if I've missed something (pretty much guaranteed that I have). Also, any comments/help would be much appreciated.

Thanks for the great feedback. Hopefully, below will address some of the comments. 1. Location of point over edge of lifting hatch - this due to me ordering the layers wrongly in Photoshop (note to self - check plans before uploading). The larger square represents the lifting hatch below baseboard level (i.e. it's at floor level in layout room). The lifting hatch at baseboard level doesn't need to extend to the perimeter wall, thus allowing the track along this section to be laid on a fixed section of baseboard extending about 150mm from the wall. That being said, the final position of the point and dimensions of the baseboard level hatch may change up to or even during construction. 2. Slope of decline too steep - I think this may be due to the nomenclature I show. The slope as indicated in the software is 1:50 on straight sections of track and 1:44 on the curved sections. Also, according to the software, the measured length of track over which the decline occurs is just over 7.5m and the fall is 0.15m (i.e 2%). The remaining track making up access to the lower storage area is still very much work in progress. I'm planning for it to be 150mm below the main baseboard, although I have the space and height to increase both whilst still maintaining a slope of 2%. I'd love to include a reverse lop, but that might be stretching things a little too far. We'll see how it goes. 3. Left side of station a departure from Newbury - as mentioned in my previous post, the left side of the station is still work in progress, and as I hope to run the four tracks back to the fiddle yard, it isn't going to based on Newbury. That being said, I have a version of the plan already drawn with 45 inch radius curves in station but it still looks a bit tight. Ian

Thanks, all for your comments and suggestions. Having given it a good deal of thought, my preference, at this time, is to retain the DMU bay. However, I have removed the branch and, for now, parked the idea of a heritage line. Hopefully, these omissions address the concerns expressed about the station throat in earlier posts. The layout plan that follows is far from finished. As drawn, the station throat on east side is as the Newbury prototype, albeit compressed by using double slips. I've checked a number of YouTube videos and am fairly satisfied that my understanding of how the east side works is correct. That is, the bay (Platform 3) is used for DMU services between Reading and Newbury. Given space limitations, the west side of the station is still work in progress. I don’t expect it to be prototypical of Newbury or anywhere else along the Reading to Westbury line. Other changes I’ve made to the earlier layout plans include taking the 4 station lanes on the west side back into the fiddle yard. Phil suggested this in a post on page 2. I’ve also increased the fiddle yard to 10 lanes. Doing this provides 2 more lanes than previous plans and is split 2 lanes up and 2 lanes down for trains that will stop at the station. The other six lanes (3 up and 3 down) are for through trains such as HSTs and freight. In addition to above, I’ve incorporated Streamline curved points to the fiddle yard on the right side of the plan. I’d also like to use these points on the left side but am struggling to make it work. I’m conscious that the tracks on left side of the plan needs to shift right, possibly creating some space for on-scene loco and hopper parking (i.e. a very much scaled down version of sidings at west end of Westbury station). Therefore, until I come up with an arrangement that doesn’t shorten the length of the fiddle yard, I’ve kept the SeTrack curved points. Any thoughts on how Streamline curved points the sidings could be worked in would be greatly appreciated. I've not managed to obtain timetables but have spent some time reviewing both passenger and freight traffic between Reading and Westbury on YouTube. I also checked out the current timetables on ‘Realtime Trains’. With the exception of the HSTs being replaced by IET 800s and some EMUs in lieu of DMUs, the passenger traffic appears to align with the videos. The freight traffic is predominately aggregates and ballast from Westbury, and again seems to align with the videos. I also noticed a good mix of loco types and liveries, which should help to keep things interesting. Electrification at Newbury was completed in late 2018. So, allowing some float I could probably stretch the period I'm hoping to model to late 2017 or early 2018. The benefit of doing so being that the liveries of GWR passenger trains included FGW blue (DMU and HST), GWR green (HST, DMUs and 800s) plus some HSTs with mixed rakes of GWR green and FGW blue.

I used double slips in attempt to compress the crossovers that do exist at east side of Newbury station. I acknowledge that they may not be the best/correct choice, but I'm not sure how else to fit everything into the available space. I checked Paddock Wood and see the similarities.

Tony, Thanks for your comments. As I mentioned in my first post "I’m looking to model an imaginary location on the GWR mainline from Reading westwards." That being said, I am keen that I don't draft a station/track arrangement and approach that doesn't/wouldn't exist in the modern era anywhere on the GWR mainline. A few options have been suggested, and I also spent a good deal of time on Google Maps and Youtube checking pretty much every GWR mainline station from London to Penzance. The plan you've commented on is based on Newbury, although the link between the bay platform and the branch does not exist. The link, as drawn, is my attempt (cheat) to extend the cross movements that occur on the fast/slow lines. I wouldn't have even considered it otherwise. I've attached a copy of Google map for east side of Newbury station. Also, if your interested, this link should take you to Google Map of Newbury station.https://www.google.com/maps/place/Newbury/@51.39765,-1.325034,1042m/data=!3m2!1e3!4b1!4m5!3m4!1s0x4876a6212eb08545:0x1fd94a42f2c843f5!8m2!3d51.39765!4d-1.32284