Trackplan usage views needed

[barney121e]

Hi All

 

I have two trackplans that i really like. The first plan is more of a run trains with a loco shed and storage siding. The second plan has some sidings that i think could be a heritage goods shed and loco shed. 

 

I am after views mainly for the second plan if i have put the goods shed and loco shed in the right place, or if you would them placed differently. I don't want to change either plan as being only restricted to 6x4 these are the best plans for me. The first plan i have seen run on youtube and the second is an adaption of a Hornby plan. Will be run by DCC.

 

Any views much appreciated.

Edited April 17, 2022 by barney121e
forgot dcc comment

[Jeff Smith]

What type of trains do you want to run?  Presumably you are already committed to 4mm scale?

[barney121e]

50 minutes ago, Jeff Smith said:

What type of trains do you want to run?  Presumably you are already committed to 4mm scale?

Hi

 

Yes committed to 4mm gauge. Tried 2mm in the past and just got frustrated with it from a scratchbuilding point of view. And not getting any younger.

 

Mainly be trains i like , got a class 42, looking for a dmu and a 08. Appreciate can only accomodate a loco and a couple of carriages so thinking of a run what i like heritage line.

[ITG]

Much may depend on what stock you wish to run. For example, on layout 2, your two goods roads are each about a foot long, so probably (by the time you clear the point) space for maybe 3 just standard length wagons. If you foresee some sort of uncoupling device, then the space beyond that may be even more restricted.

Yet there is more space on your loco roads. Maybe, as you say you envisage a heritage line, loco space is needed?

 

The loop behind the backscene (is it a run round?) is pretty short so will restrict train length.

Many folk on here will warn against the use of 1st radius curves (the inner circuit), especially as some manufacturers of some locos will advise usage on minimum 2nd radius. The consequence of having goods/loco roads on the outside of the circuits, is that by definition it compresses the radii of the circuits. Can you rework for the sidings to be on the inside?

 

Also, have you got access all around the board, as it could be a stretch to reach across 4’, both when building, laying track etc, and when maintaining, track cleaning, etc.

 

Sorry to throw all these questions up in the air,  but better now than getting surprises after you’ve started building!

Good luck.

[barney121e]

15 minutes ago, ITG said:

Much may depend on what stock you wish to run. For example, on layout 2, your two goods roads are each about a foot long, so probably (by the time you clear the point) space for maybe 3 just standard length wagons. If you foresee some sort of uncoupling device, then the space beyond that may be even more restricted.

Yet there is more space on your loco roads. Maybe, as you say you envisage a heritage line, loco space is needed?

 

The loop behind the backscene (is it a run round?) is pretty short so will restrict train length.

Many folk on here will warn against the use of 1st radius curves (the inner circuit), especially as some manufacturers of some locos will advise usage on minimum 2nd radius. The consequence of having goods/loco roads on the outside of the circuits, is that by definition it compresses the radii of the circuits. Can you rework for the sidings to be on the inside?

 

Also, have you got access all around the board, as it could be a stretch to reach across 4’, both when building, laying track etc, and when maintaining, track cleaning, etc.

 

Sorry to throw all these questions up in the air,  but better now than getting surprises after you’ve started building!

Good luck.

No worries. Best i can say is this. With only 6x4 it will restrict train lengths, but i'm ok with that. Would swapping the goods area to the right hand side on layout help the situation , well a little at least? Maybe move the points into them slightly to start on first part of straight?

 

Behind the backscene is a problem. I can get 2nd and 3rd radius on the board with some adjustment, plan below, but not sure how to run the goods yard into the inside. Doesn't need to be big. But then makes space at back rather limited, again maybe just a thing i will have to put up with. My class 42 runs on 1st radius curves and understand that a lot of trains do, but of course some won't. In layout 1, the thinking behind it was for non 1st radius happy locos to run either way on outside loop.

 

Got access all round board, so that's a plus. 

[The Johnster]

If you are thinking of a heritage line layout, then perhaps a single track would be more appropriate, and it would enable you to dispense with the first radius curves, as well as the jiggerypokery behind the backscene, and leave you room to bring the goods yard point to the right, extending the length of the goods yard sidings.  IMHO a single track layout on which trains have to be held in the station passing loop until the section ahead is clear (i.e. the other train is also inside the passing loop) is both prototypical and more interesting to operate.  It is also arguably more suitable for the shorter trains inevitable on a 6x4. 
 

It also gives you the ability to run around, so that trains can terminate at this station from either direction and return whence they came, and goods trains in both directions can shunt the goods yard, both types of movement increasing the operating potential.  The behind-the-backscene area can now be used for holding loops in a fiddle/storage yard, meaning more trains can use the layout at a time. 
 

I’m not a fan of loco sheds on this sort of layout, they’d be at the terminus or the junction, but heritage admittedly decreases their unlikelihood.  It sounds like a good idea to have a place to display locomotives, but you can’t see them inside the shed and they don’t ‘do’ much.  I’d want to use that space for a small rail-served industry such as a dairy, quarry, wagon works, or just some sort of warehouse, which generates traffic and more operational interest.  Curving it around alongside the main line like on plan 1 would allow you to make the siding(s) a little longer, as would similarly curving the goods yard; every inch of space is valuable on a 6x4.

 

A loco shed, if you must have one and this is not up for negotiation, can go on the inside of the main circuit, where you don’t have to reach over the station to couple/uncouple. 
 

It might be worth you having a look at an old  plan from the 70s called Bredon, a very attractive 6x4 that would, I suggest, suit your needs well and look pretty good, too. 
 

Whatever you decide, good luck with it, have fun, and let us know how you get on. 

[barney121e]

11 minutes ago, The Johnster said:

If you are thinking of a heritage line layout, then perhaps a single track would be more appropriate, and it would enable you to dispense with the first radius curves, as well as the jiggerypokery behind the backscene, and leave you room to bring the goods yard point to the right, extending the length of the goods yard sidings.  IMHO a single track layout on which trains have to be held in the station passing loop until the section ahead is clear (i.e. the other train is also inside the passing loop) is both prototypical and more interesting to operate.  It is also arguably more suitable for the shorter trains inevitable on a 6x4. 
 

It also gives you the ability to run around, so that trains can terminate at this station from either direction and return whence they came, and goods trains in both directions can shunt the goods yard, both types of movement increasing the operating potential.  The behind-the-backscene area can now be used for holding loops in a fiddle/storage yard, meaning more trains can use the layout at a time. 
 

I’m not a fan of loco sheds on this sort of layout, they’d be at the terminus or the junction, but heritage admittedly decreases their unlikelihood.  It sounds like a good idea to have a place to display locomotives, but you can’t see them inside the shed and they don’t ‘do’ much.  I’d want to use that space for a small rail-served industry such as a dairy, quarry, wagon works, or just some sort of warehouse, which generates traffic and more operational interest.  Curving it around alongside the main line like on plan 1 would allow you to make the siding(s) a little longer, as would similarly curving the goods yard; every inch of space is valuable on a 6x4.

 

A loco shed, if you must have one and this is not up for negotiation, can go on the inside of the main circuit, where you don’t have to reach over the station to couple/uncouple. 
 

It might be worth you having a look at an old  plan from the 70s called Bredon, a very attractive 6x4 that would, I suggest, suit your needs well and look pretty good, too. 
 

Whatever you decide, good luck with it, have fun, and let us know how you get on. 

Unfortunately Bredon is 6ft8. However just found this plan which could be perfect. Although not sure where line on bottom right is going to.

[DCB]

I did my doodle before you posted the last post.     Original second image is very awkward and frustrating  to operate, not very railwaylike, 

First one I like,  I would get the tracks about 2inches away from the edge and have an upstand or lip to catch errant stock, 1" is ample, my living room table layout had less than 1"and was fine. That means widening the layout on the horizontal axis by 3" or so  A to A on my doodle and narrowing on the vertical by curving the lower loop road sharper, I would use flexitrack but a 2nd rad curve might do it. Needs flexi to sort your kink bottom right, no set track is made that size.   Staggered Platforms  are not unusual, High Wycombe was an extreme example.  

I would use a goods shed not a loco shed and extend the siding.

Sidings and straight platforms don't go together on small ovals, one or the other. One track should be clockwise (outer for UK ) the other anticlockwise (Inner for UK)   not one passenger and the other goods, that was very very unusual in the UK, More Thomas the tank engine than BR Rule book

I would use the straights for points for sidings and curve the platforms.  Make the platform walls out of lego and put a cardboard top on as first attempt. Platforms should be lower than the middle of the buffers BTW, lots of modellers, Hornby etc get that wrong.   Anyway see doodle. I did one for layout 2 but it was hopeless,

 

[Harlequin]

Barney,

There is a Layout and Track Design forum for questions like this.

Is the 6*4 size limit real or imposed arbitrarily? (And have you got access on all sides - because 4ft is too far to reach across.)

 

[barney121e]

1 hour ago, Harlequin said:

Barney,

There is a Layout and Track Design forum for questions like this.

Is the 6*4 size limit real or imposed arbitrarily? (And have you got access on all sides - because 4ft is too far to reach across.)

 

Hi Phil

 

sorry, completely missed that section for some reason. Who do i contact to possibly move thread?

 

the 6x4 limit is what i have, a 6x4 baseboard agreed with the other half and access all round, although must be moved back against wall after use.

[The Johnster]

2 hours ago, barney121e said:

Unfortunately Bredon is 6ft8. However just found this plan which could be perfect. Although not sure where line on bottom right is going to.

 

That has some Bredonistic elements; I'd suggest the following 'improvements'. 

 

You could extend the bay platform road from where it currently ends into a loop rejoining the main line just to the right of the existing platform loop, and have a goods yard or a private industry occupying sqauare 1 terminating to the left of the curved point at it's other end from a rh point to the left of the platform end.  The 'inner' sidings can be either elongated by replacing the point closer to the junction with the upper platform line, or a lh turnout provided facing the other way leading to a headshunt which would terminate just above the main line curve to the right of the station.  These sidings can also be extended inwards and an additional siding, with the headshunt, would provide an inglenook puzzle that could operate independently of the rest of the layout using the headshunt...

 

The siding bottom  right from leads to what I assume to be a goods shed building.  As the station loop is capable of taking longer trains than the fiddle yard loop, and assuming the scenic break to be about a foot from the top/rear of the baseboard it is possible to enlarge the fiddle yard loop from points just inside the break  The platforms can be extended in to the wyes of the points to the right of the upper one and the left of the lower one   Platforms longer than the trains present a much better appearance.  Extending the outer fiddle yard loop into sidings at each end of it will provide storage for auto trains or single unit 'bubble cars' or GW railcars. 

Edited April 17, 2022 by The Johnster

[barney121e]

5 minutes ago, The Johnster said:

 

That has some Bredonistic elements; I'd suggest the following 'improvements'.  For the sake of locating positions I am going to propose an x upwards y across grid from the bottom left hand corner.

 

You could extend the bay platform road from x1,2/y3.2 to curve back towards the main line from x1.2/y3.8 to rejoin it at x2.1/y5.4, and have a goods yard or a private industry occupying sqauare 1 terminating at about x1.3/y0.1, from a point at x2.0/y0.2.  The 'inner' sidings can be either elongated by replacing the point to x3.8'/y0.9, or a lh turnout provided facing the other way at x3.4/y 1.0 leading to a headshunt which would terminate at x4.7/y1.0.  These sidings can also be extended inwards and an additional siding, with the headshunt, would provide an inglenook puzzle that could operate independently of the rest of the layout using the headshunt...

 

The siding bottom right from x5.8/y2.2 leads to what I assume to be a goods shed building.  As the station loop is capable of taking longer trains than the fiddle yard loop, and assuming the scenic break to be at about x3.0, it is possible to enlarge the fiddle yard loop from points at x3.2/y0.5 and/or x3.2/y5.5.  The platforms can be extended in to the wyes of the points at x0.9/y3.3 and x0.5/y1.5.  Platforms longer than the trains present a much better appearance.  Extending the outer fiddle yard loop into sidings at each end of it will provide storage for auto trains or single unit 'bubble cars' or GW railcars. 

Can i be honest, i am totally confused with the x and y axis thing. Sorry.

[The Johnster]

Typical of me, I've tried to make it less confusing by making it more confusing, more or less, my apologies.  I'll edit the post forthwith to try and clear matters up.

[The Johnster]

Better?

[barney121e]

2 minutes ago, The Johnster said:

Better?

Have sent you a DM.

[Jeff Smith]

I built an 8'x4' single track oval with 16.5mm track (On30) and found that there was just enough straight length between the curves to make a reasonable length run-round (actually going into the curve each side).  I quickly became bored operating it - great for watching the trains go round and round though!

 

Have you thought of a simple U shaped layout terminus to fiddle yard style.  On the terminus end you could have a fan of sidings, a platform and maybe a bay.  A shunting spur along the front, maybe even curving parallel to the curve.

[barney121e]

37 minutes ago, Jeff Smith said:

I built an 8'x4' single track oval with 16.5mm track (On30) and found that there was just enough straight length between the curves to make a reasonable length run-round (actually going into the curve each side).  I quickly became bored operating it - great for watching the trains go round and round though!

 

Have you thought of a simple U shaped layout terminus to fiddle yard style.  On the terminus end you could have a fan of sidings, a platform and maybe a bay.  A shunting spur along the front, maybe even curving parallel to the curve.

To be honest i love watching trains go round and round myself. This layout is really to get me started, getting used to different techniques and just sitting and watching trains. Then hopefully in the 2 to 3 years i hope to have a bigger layout.

[Harlequin]

1 hour ago, barney121e said:

Hi Phil

 

sorry, completely missed that section for some reason. Who do i contact to possibly move thread?

 

the 6x4 limit is what i have, a 6x4 baseboard agreed with the other half and access all round, although must be moved back against wall after use.

No problem, some kind soul seems to have moved the topic.

 

Could your other half be persuaded to go for something bigger, IF it folded up or stacked to actually be smaller and more out of the way when not in use???

 

For instance, what about two 2ft by 6ft boards that stack one on top of the other when not in use but join up to make a 4 by 6 or better a 2 by 12 when running…?

[barney121e]

9 minutes ago, Harlequin said:

No problem, some kind soul seems to have moved the topic.

 

Could your other half be persuaded to go for something bigger, IF it folded up or stacked to actually be smaller and more out of the way when not in use???

 

For instance, what about two 2ft by 6ft boards that stack one on top of the other when not in use but join up to make a 4 by 6 or better a 2 by 12 when running…?

Unfortunately not.

[Chimer]

I think I would develop the single track version as here (changes from the original in blue):

 

Curving the platforms means they easily hold a 2 coach train.

 

The spurs off the loop in the hidden section would be handy additional fiddle space, e.g. to hold a 2-car DMU or a short trip freight when not wanted.

 

The kickback siding bottom left would be really annoying to shunt, if say one particular type of wagon needed to be picked up from there and another deposited in its place (I like annoying shunting puzzles 😃).

 

3  goods yard sidings are better than 2, and the longer the better imho.

 

I would use the siding bottom right for loco servicing facilities (with or without a shed).  Which really just means somewhere to hold another loco or two (we've all got too many).

 

Best of luck!

 

[Jeff Smith]

The kickback siding could hold a spare coach.....

 

I think this is a good design.  Goods trains could be shunted from either direction.  With tight curves  bogie vehicles tend to emphasize the curves so I would stick to short wheelbase locos, coaches and goods wagons.

Edited April 18, 2022 by Jeff Smith
Typo