Templot Club Archive 2007-2020                             

topic: 1064newbie
author remove search highlighting
 
posted: 8 Mar 2010 17:18

from:

tony polman
 
Basildon, Essex - United Kingdom

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
Hi all. after a 30year pause, i`m now looking to get back into modelling railways. attached is my first attempt at a simple branch line terminus. any comments regarding operational problems, un-prototypical track plan, or just your thoughts on how to improve it would be most welcome. i`m hoping to keep within a 10ft by 2ft ish,  area.
cheers.
Attachment: attach_747_1064_drophill_road.box 358

posted: 8 Mar 2010 17:52

from:

Alan McMillan
 
Edinburgh - United Kingdom

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
Hi Tony

I noticed you had a few doglegs and a slightly "sectional track" approach. I've smoothed things out a bit and hopefully it'll be useful to you.

Regards

Alan McMillan
Attachment: attach_748_1064_Drophill_Amended.box 328

posted: 8 Mar 2010 18:28

from:

Paul Boyd
 
Loughborough - United Kingdom

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
Hi Tony

I've looked at Alan's modified version as he's tidied up some of the obvious "quirks", but I'm having trouble visualising the plan as a finished layout!  Could you perhaps explain a bit more about your thinking behind this?  For instance, I think the fiddle yard exit is the track at bottom left, and where does the platform go - is it an island platform? (Is it even intended as a passenger line?)

One thing that strikes me immediately, bearing in mind the number of kick-back goods sidings, is that the only method running round has a very short (200mm) headshunt - that is still assuming the fiddle yard comes in bottom left.  You'll need to get a loco and at least one wagon into that headshunt.

As far as being prototypical goes, that depends on your prototype :)

 

posted: 8 Mar 2010 20:22

from:

tony polman
 
Basildon, Essex - United Kingdom

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
Hi peter. thanks for the comments. as you say, the fiddle yard is intended to run from bottom left, while the platform would be below template 6. the small " head shunt" is the loco release for running round. 200mm to be adapted. the runaround loop will double as a head shunt. practical or not?

posted: 8 Mar 2010 20:58

from:

Paul Boyd
 
Loughborough - United Kingdom

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
I've been called worse :D

Having another look, I think I would be inclined to make two biggish changes.

1 - lose the two sidings at the bottom, or move them to behind the platform.  That would be more prototypical.

2 - flatten the run-round loop (template 5 on Alan's box file).  You'd need to be careful with radii though.

I think looking at it overall, it's all too curvy, and gives the impression of trying to fill the space with track.

Have a look at the attached box file and see what you think - it's a bit rough, mind!
Attachment: attach_749_1064_Drophill_Amended_2.box 327

posted: 8 Mar 2010 21:08

from:

tony polman
 
Basildon, Essex - United Kingdom

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
opps. sorry paul. thanks for that. the 2 sidings you`ve repositioned were intended as a loco yard. would it of been common practice to have such a yard close to the ` paying public`? unfortunately, as i`m sure applies to many, many others my interest in all things railway has come too late to know too much of how it used to be.

posted: 8 Mar 2010 21:15

from:

Nigel Brown
 
 

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
Hi Tony

Just a few suggestions.

(1) The access to your platform and station building is very narrow, even more so if you've got coal staithes along the coal siding. You could increase it by changing template 5 into a Y, which should be shorter as well so that you shouldn't increase the overall length by much, if anything at all.

(2) You could also increase it by having the end of the platform road not curving so much; you could even have the release end straight, or have no curve at all. You might have to shorten the run-round loop a tad to avoid lengthening the layout, but would this matter?

(3) You could also increase it by having the end of the coal siding straight.

(4) If you're using the run-roand loop for shunting the sidings as well it might be more usual to replace template 5 by a crossover, thus having a headshunt alongside the release road. You could also use the headshunt end for something else e.g. an end-loading dock or a cattle dock.

(5) I'd be inclined to move template 7 to the right, and change it from a Y to either a straight road into the sidings or make both roads curve in the same direction, to give a better flow, and also give longer sidings. If you wished, this would give you room to insert a layback siding between templates 8 and 3, so that all shunting except for the coal siding could take place clear of the running road.

(6) Not sure how you plan the loco sidings. If the upper road was curved a bit less it would make a good coaling siding with the lower road an engine shed.

Just a few ideas
cheers
Nigel


posted: 8 Mar 2010 22:03

from:

Paul Boyd
 
Loughborough - United Kingdom

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
Hi Tony
the 2 sidings you`ve repositioned were intended as a loco yard. would it of been common practice to have such a yard close to the ` paying public`? unfortunately, as i`m sure applies to many, many others my interest in all things railway has come too late to know too much of how it used to be.
Ah - I didn't know that was to be a loco shed!  In that case, where I've moved them would be wrong.  How about making the two sidings top left into the loco sidings, and the two behind the platform into goods sidings.  That might work better, because when you release a loco from the train, it can go straight to the shed rather than shuffling about.  The goods sidings behind the platform are prototypical.

I think I would also make the platform line/release turnout into a straighter line as well, as per Nigel's suggestion, so that the turnout becomes RH with a return curve rather than LH.  That would give you a longer platform length.

It sounds like we're pulling your plan to pieces, but hopefully you'll have some new ideas!



posted: 8 Mar 2010 22:46

from:

Nigel Brown
 
 

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
Hi Paul

If the two top left sidings are the loco roads as you suggest, I'd suggest putting the platform and station building at the top rather than in the middle; this would give the bottom sidings room to breath, in fact as your plan stands there isn't much room to cram a platform and building in, let alone access to them.


Hi Tony

Think overall there are a lot of unkowns, viz:-
(a) is the viewing side top or bottom
(b) is it for home or exhibition or both
(c) is it a get-started scheme to get back into modelling, which can be replaced once it's served that purpose, or is it aimed at a reasonably long life
(d) is scenery going to take a substantial or minimal part
(e) are the baseboards going to be rectangular or not

Take for example (d). If you don't fancy much scenery, then your plan has the advantage of a lot of railway which can fill rectangular baseboards, whereas Pau's plan has a large unfilled area down the bottom, which either needs scenery, or a curved baseboard to get rid off.

Take (c). If it's just a get-started plan I'd simplify it as much as possible, although still leave enough in it to satisfy you. Otherwise get as much variety in as you can without cramming it too much.

cheers
Nigel

posted: 9 Mar 2010 18:04

from:

Paul Boyd
 
Loughborough - United Kingdom

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
Hi Nigel:
If the two top left sidings are the loco roads as you suggest, I'd suggest putting the platform and station building at the top rather than in the middle; this would give the bottom sidings room to breath, in fact as your plan stands there isn't much room to cram a platform and building in, let alone access to them.
I wasn't designing a layout :D  You're right, but Tony would have picked that up if he'd gone with the plan, and he obviously has the skills to modify it accordingly.  I would still leave the platform where it is though, but shuffle the sidings down a bit - one of them could even be a bay or an end loading dock so it would be right up against the platform.  I agree that access would be tight, but I really think the platform line/release line should be straightened out which would remove that problem.
whereas Paul's plan has a large unfilled area down the bottom, which either needs scenery, or a curved baseboard to get rid off.
That large unfilled area is deliberate and shouldn't be got rid of!  The thinking is that it will help with the "layout within the landscape" scenario rather than having every square inch of baseboard filled with track!

Cheers

posted: 9 Mar 2010 20:26

from:

tony polman
 
Basildon, Essex - United Kingdom

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
Thanks for all the helpfull comments, guys.  Spent an hour fiddling and came up with these ammendments. comments? scenery will be urban, retaining walls etc, viewing from the bottom of the page, intend to scratch-build track in EM so hoping this layout will be around for a while.
Attachment: attach_751_1064_drophill_road.box 363

posted: 9 Mar 2010 21:01

from:

Paul Boyd
 
Loughborough - United Kingdom

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
Looks good!  Bearing in mind Nigel's comment about room for the platform, I would be inclined to shorten 'siding 3' and turn it into an end loading dock.

Right then - I reckon you're ready to put a catch point or three in now :)  I've VERY crudely chucked a couple in for you.

The problem with Templot is that it can be hard to decide when to stop fiddling and start building!
Attachment: attach_752_1064_drophill_10_03_09_2100_11.box 266

posted: 9 Mar 2010 21:34

from:

tony polman
 
Basildon, Essex - United Kingdom

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
thanks paul. 1 shortened siding it is then. reckon i should have about 36" of platform. as i don`t even have the wood to start on baseboards yet, let alone rolling stock to measure, would you say i`ll get 3 carriages and loco in?

posted: 9 Mar 2010 21:48

from:

Paul Boyd
 
Loughborough - United Kingdom

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
At the risk of stating the obvious, it depends on what type of locos and rolling stock you envisage using!  I've just measured three B-set coaches and a pannier tank, and that comes out at 3ft.  Don't forget you need to allow for clearance at each end of the loop.

Incidentally, I'm trying a new approach where the wood (actually extruded polystyrene!) is going to be the last thing to buy!  I seem to start the boards then drift onto another project, so I reckon if I build the track first I'll be able to plop it onto the boards and get something running quickly!

Cheers

posted: 9 Mar 2010 21:57

from:

tony polman
 
Basildon, Essex - United Kingdom

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
Thanks for that, paul. open frame boards. think the ideas been around a while. having invested in Templot, iyo, would it still be of advantage to me to join EMGS?

posted: 9 Mar 2010 22:10

from:

Paul Boyd
 
Loughborough - United Kingdom

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
would it still be of advantage to me to join EMGS?
Without a shadow of a doubt :)  Thanks to some "budget cuts", the EMGS is now the only society of which I'm a member, modelling in P4 (a gauge also supported by the EMGS)



about Templot Club

Templot Companion - User Guide - A-Z Index Templot Explained for beginners Please click: important information for new members and first-time visitors.
indexing link for search engines

back to top of page


Please read this important note about copyright: Unless stated otherwise, all the files submitted to this web site are copyright and the property of the respective contributor. You are welcome to use them for your own personal non-commercial purposes, and in your messages on this web site. If you want to publish any of this material elsewhere or use it commercially, you must first obtain the owner's permission to do so.
The small print: All material submitted to this web site is the responsibility of the respective contributor. By submitting material to this web site you acknowledge that you accept full responsibility for the material submitted. The owner of this web site is not responsible for any content displayed here other than his own contributions. The owner of this web site may edit, modify or remove any content at any time without giving notice or reason. Problems with this web site? Contact webmaster@templot.com.   This web site uses cookies: click for information.  
© 2020  

Powered by UltraBB - © 2009 Data 1 Systems