Chimer

No answers, but more questions ...... Obviously if you can't see the yard, you aren't going to be doing any "fiddling" in the sense of exchanging/turning locos and brake vans by hand .... correct? So, are you just going to be using multiple units, push-pulls or other stuff that can happily just shuttle backwards and forwards (which would make things a lot simpler)? If not, you either need a return loop or (mind boggles) the ability to uncouple arriving locos and either run round or attach a different loco for the return to the real world - which? Given those answers, I'm sure people who understand electronics better than me will be able to devise something involve detecting where things are and stopping them in the right places!

And a return loop ....

Great to see, but - why so high? The usual reason is to get the spotter's "trackside view" as opposed to the one from a helicopter, but, seeing this chunk properly in context for the first time, you can't get trackside views because of the height of the ground between you and the track. You need the helicopter view to be able to appreciate what you've done / are doing through setting the railway in the landscape. I would be sorely tempted to shorten the legs, or compromise by reducing the height of the .... er .... forescene? Is that a word? I can see this will be less of an issue elsewhere in the room due to the slope in the ceiling, but still .....

I don't get the latest plan at all - the only benefit of a return loop is that it returns trains without any fiddling or shunting. Which this doesn't ...... On the previous plan, I just about get it, but think including the second, hidden, route to the loop is more trouble than it's worth. Presumably you're just wanting to be able to turn a loco without it being seen? And I really think you need to be able to get a full train into the yard headshunt (or accept the compromise of using the main line for that purpose).

Really looking forward to seeing shots showing this lot all together in situ - and then up on (how many?!!) legs .... Cheers, Chris

I think they are, in practical/electrical terms. But of course with electrofrog points the frogs have to be protected with IRJs as usual where necessary - four on the crossovers, and a bunch more in the top yard because of the additional feeds required to get power into the kickback sidings. Not necessary with insulfrogs. The tutorial solution works for DC too, provided you're happy to stop trains in the loop sections and flip a DPDT switch to change the polarity of the loop rails. Simple and cheaper ... And incidentally, if the station area represents a double track main line, which it seems to, both crossovers really should be reversed to be trailing rather than facing. But I'm a bit confused by your reference to a "passing loop", which would normally imply a single track line. Trying to be helpful 🙂

At the risk of opening a 12-page row about what "the basic Minories plan" actually looks like (!), I'll happily send you the XTC file behind this if you pm me your email address. OO, medium Streamline points, could change that if you like ... Cheers, Chris

Message to self: Never assume!!

I'm guessing, but assume (!) the Hornby track separation is driven by (a) their points turning out 22.5 degrees as per usual for sectional track and (b) their choice of radii, which will be tight. The Peco points presumably (!) only turn out something like the 12 degrees they use for 00 Streamline, and you will presumably (!) be using gentler curves, except maybe for 90 degree turns in hidden corners where it's easy to open out the track spacing by extending the straights on the outer circuit and using the same radius curves on both (as drawn many times in other threads by @DCB). So I'd stick with the separation generated by the Peco crossovers as my baseline.

Hi Philip I haven't commented for ages as I had absolutely nothing useful to add on the subject of rebuilding barns - but have been watching that, and earlier your 3-D visualisations of the layout, with fascination. I am now really impressed with the landscape module building. It is often observed here that "the landscape came before the railway" but this is the first time I've seen it taken so literally! All power to your whatknot, and I do hope when you've joined it all together, there's somewhere for the tracks to go ..... Cheers, Chris

Yup. Think we have to accept the OP knows broadly how he wants to use his space, and keep any further suggestions within the 8' x 2'2" constraint!

It fits - with medium Streamline points and the ability to run round a 2' rake ...

Yes, I do like @Nearholmer's latest, which resurrects the original idea for the runround loop. I'm guessing @dseagull wanted the sharp curve to the FY hidden, but given I believe he's only using short wheelbase stock, I reckon leaving it in the open gains more, scenically, than it loses.

So this is a suggestion, using Streamline points and 2" track centres. It's got all the functionality, sidings etc of the original, except the centre road at the through station (and an unnecessary-as-far-as-I-can-see facing crossover on the top mainline section). And you can now get from the terminus, and from the freight branch, to the mainline and back again, and reverse trains in the through station by running round. Obviously you can play about with the hidden sidings arrangements a bit (loops on the mainlines there might be good), but as others have noted fiddling in there won't be easy, given the terminus above. Just kicking ideas about really. There are bits of R3 and R4 knocking about on the freight branch, but otherwise min radius is 27", 29.5" through the station.

Just for the hell of it I eventually got round to sticking this into XTrackCad to see how it looked - I've stuck to Settrack radii and track centres, and therefore Settrack points, although the many crossovers could all be done using larger radius / smaller turnout angle Streamline points with a bit of straight between them. I've tried to provide lateral separation between the main line and the various branches. Didn't replicate the interesting triangular platform because it got a bit too narrow at the right hand end. The crunch point for me is platforms with R2/3/4 curves - I think as a minimum I would ditch the central track through the station and try to ease the radii in the bottom left corner. For what it's worth .....

For clarification, the 10" turntable is not critical, it's just the size I happened to use (and didn't notice until I'd been through the bitmap/paint/jpeg loop). And I was actually suggesting losing the entire goods yard, not just the headshunt 😀.

Colin, having noted your points above only after working through my ideas, this is what I came up with for the top left corner ....... That's a 10" turntable and the 3 roads between it and the shed could include a coaling ramp and ash siding. And I was thinking possibly some carriage sidings parallel to the shed access road.

At a first (late night!) glance, I think the double crossover from outer (main?) lines to inner (suburban?) lines on the top board would be better reversed, i.e. using right-hand points, which would allow traffic to get (occasionally) from the main lines to the terminal platforms and back again. And I think I'd restrict freight to one fixed rake on each main line circuit with no shunting. Perhaps a mini-manhole in the top left corner for emergency access would allow the addition of a triangular board to enlarge that corner and allow a more "elegant" MPD? But from a blank piece of paper, I'd go for less track and gentler visible curves. Best of luck!!

Just for the hell of it I've done the left hand throat of KSE in XTrackCad - points are mostly small radius Streamline and it's taken me 14 feet to get to the road bridge (with one track in the MPD area missing. There's obviously something not quite right as neither side of the island platform serves trains travelling anti-clockwise, but I can't see where I've deviated from the plan in the OP. Obviously the multitude of through roads could be cut back significantly without losing the essence of the scheme, but clearly quite a lot has got to give! Hopefully a useful contribution to your thinking .....

Maybe the rules have changed given modern improvements for ensuring safety, but head-on collisions remain bad news, as Greek Railways just rediscovered ..... Link So to my steam-age eyes the top right double junction looks highly illegal. The back-to-back left hand points in the middle of it allow a train proceeding anti-clockwise to end up on the wrong lower line, and the facing crossover to the left of them would let it on to the wrong upper line. A "standard" double junction using a crossing, using either a simple diamond or a single slip providing a trailing crossover would seem much more likely. Then there's another facing crossover on the lower lines to the left of the lead into the sidings. I can see why you want it operationally, but again it doesn't look right to me. Perhaps you could simplify things by replacing the double-track main line past the sidings with a single-track, maybe freight only, line. This would also simplify the arrangements at the place where the miracle has to happen .....

Schematic only, to see what might be done in the space. Very similar to DCB really with the main station on the curve nearest the entry point. 22.5"/24.5" radius on the mainline, 65" radius through the "junction", though the pointwork needed to make it a junction would play havoc with the smooth curve. Branch line rising from the junction to a terminus bottom right, over storage loops (which could probably be set up just to send a sequence of mainline trains through the scene while you get your realism from operating the branch). Could try to develop the details if anywhere meeting your requirements ........

I did work out the gradients properly (didn't arrive at a level 1.64" above datum across the door for the lift-out by accident!), but only really did the first plan to illustrate what we meant by a "folded eight" and what the implications were .... No intentions then or now of developing this one any further (unless asked by the OP!)

But note a fiddle yard will need another 8 feet or so of flat track which won't be available for gradients. And if you think about putting the station on the higher level with the fiddle yard underneath it, you're then back to needing 4+ inches of height gain as opposed to 3 (and quite a bit more if you actually want to get your hands in to fiddle). I've been round this loop so many times myself trying to fit something similar into a space quite a bit bigger (14' x 8'), and never achieved anything that (a) I was confident I could put together, (b) would deliver what I want operationally and (c) used gradients no worse than 1 in 50. It's all compromise .....

More or less! I reckon you can get a double track round a 90 degree curve in 24" without clashes, either maintaining a 2" spacing using 22" and 24" radii, or using misaligned set-track curves for both tracks, if you don't fancy trying to bend flexi that tightly without kinks. So to do an initial plan quickly, I just use 24" curves.

Assuming red and green is a level double-track circuit, that looks to be a very steep incline from where the light blue tracks pass under red (bottom left-ish) up to the green double junction? Otherwise all the gradients look gradual enough for you not to need to play with helices (unless you really want to!) We've had some animated discussions about them on other threads in this section recently ......