Not happy with current layout

[robhillwales]

Hi Guys

I have this current layout (minus the tunnels) but i'm not happy with it.

My baseboard is 8x3.5.

I would like to add more of a shunting layout to the design but not sure how to best place this, any help would be really appreciated

Thanks

Rob

[Mountain]

I assume your measurements are in feet. Metres would be a lovely size to have!
Umm. While having a station on a curve may not be ideal, you could build the station to include the curves of the main line which would free up some space for sidings. Just a thought. You could also have an over bridge to a town to make the station look much larger then it is.
Emettman is the one with good ideas....
I would go for the single track option instead as it provides more space and gives a more scenic look.

[Emettman]

Hello robhillwales
Can I ask what trains you are currently running, particularly whether the passenger services are DMU or loco hauled?
(What's currently your longest train?)
I have an idea or two, but getting loco-hauled trains to reverse direction is not quite so simple!

Chris.

[robhillwales]

Thanks

I currently have a steam engine with 3 passenger carriages but looking to get diesel sorry to be so vague but I’m just starting out with all this. Love the idea of a shuting layout but would also like to include a loop.

Hope this helps

Rob

[Mike Parkes]

Suggest you move the point on the inner loop to be next to the level crossing; that will give you space to lengthen the two sidings/possibly add a third. I would remove the curved point crossover as facing crossovers are generally avoided unless their is a necessary need. Rearrange the curved points to form a trailing crossover at one end of the station at the top of the layout, you could also so with a further trailing crossover at the other end so a terminating train can be shunted to the other platform and the loco ran round. The right hand station would benefit from a crossover near the end of the tracks again to allow a loco to run round. The line that the loco runs round on could have its platform dispensed with and the track beyond the crossover could be a used as a siding; it may be possible to provide a further siding where the platform was.

[Emettman]

There was I hoping for short 2-car DMUs !

Three 10.5" passenger coaches plus a (tender?) engine isn't easy. but I have "something".
My thoughts will need explaining.

No 1st radius curves, now.
The curved station on the right has an overbridge station building, which is the best way to justify the curved island platform, which is often the best way to get a platform of some length on a narrow board.
This allows two passenger trains to alternate, but one has to go to the terminal bay platform at the upper left station when a freight train wants the line. I had to make the station building there high level too, to make the line long enough to holds a loco and three coaches.
A loco-pulled passenger train will end up with the loco at the wrong end, so a small loco on the siding in the upper yellow section would be needed to pull the coaches out and put them on the mainline platform. The train engine can then get out (turn Round in the return loop if necessary) and)take the train the other way.

The goods yard can take in and send out trains in both directions.
*The return loop is not a problem*: one switch will solve all issues there.
Most shunting will be done with a small engine (possibly the one from the upper left station, working overtime.)
The yellow areas show where extra loco siding could go, if needed.

The layout needs two controllers since the shunting can be done while a train is running on the main line.

First thoughts,
Chris.

[robhillwales]

Wow. That looks really good. Thank you.

Will need to design it in a scarm now to check I have all the right track,points etc.

Will post a picture of the progress

Thanks again

Rob

[Mountain]

If it doesn't fit in with the track geometry, use most of the curves etc as being sectional track and turn to flexible track to make things fit in. (As long as you dont make curves too tight flexible track not only works well but saves money as well as it is generally cheaper to buy).
Flexible track is easy to cut to length using track cutting shears or via a carbodium type cutting disk mounted on a minidrill (Use eye protection). One can also use a razor saw though I've never knowingly owned a razor saw as yet to try. I use the shears or the minidrill method depending on what is most appropriate for the location.
If buying flexible track dont forget to buy a packet or two of railjoiners to go with it. To join a piece of flexible track to another track after ones cut it to length and if necessary, filed the ends of the cut rails slightly if burred, one needs to gently cut the railchair pieces that hold the rails off at the leading sleeper so that railjoiners will slide underneath. This will ensure you are not left with a gap in the sleepers. Use a craft knife make these cuts. It is very easy to do.

[Emettman]

Wow. That looks really good. Thank you.
Rob

I'm glad you like it.
2-3 57' (9") coaches and a tank engine would be an easier fit, a push-pull steam set even more so,
but at least with the return loop tender engines can be turned round.

I've used quite a bit of flexitrack, but only where "almost straight" and odd lengths were required, to avoid most of the juggling with quarter straights.
I put the two curved points bottom left in because you had them (If I'm correct.) Ordinary points in that area actually fit slightly better and give a marginally longer platform.
Note: the point for the bay siding is a Y to get a good angle for the platform.

If you start drawing with the whole chain of points upper right to lower left, everything else should pretty much fall into place.
(crosses fingers)

Chris.

[Mike Parkes]

I find a pair of vertically cutting shears (Xuron 2175M / Expo 75583) best for cutting flexible track - the horizontal ones IME can impose a twisting action on the rail potentially pulling the rail out of the sleepers. The vertical cutting ones are intended for use with track in situ which is pretty the same as placing the flexible track on the board and cutting it as opposed to holding it in mid air. Also seems to need less cleaning up of the cut afterwards - a good file, bigger than a needle file , is a necessity and its best to cut the track very slightly overlength to counter the reduction in length caused by the cleaning up.

[Mike Parkes]

Whilst playing around in scarm see what it looks like using some Peco Streamline points in appropriate places - strikes me the curved crossover at the bottom right of the plan could very easily be replaced if using flexible track by a pair of such points on the almost straight section to the left, increasing usefully the length of a train that can be held at the platforms - try a large Y (SL-98) on the inner track immediately after the curve past the island platform ends linking to a large left hand (SL-89) on the outer track with a straightish length of flexible track between them. The two sidings towards the top left could also use Streamline points

[Emettman]

Whilst playing around in scarm see what it looks like using some Peco Streamline points in appropriate places -

There are certainly tweaks to be made, or at least considered.
That was definitely a "first thoughts" plan not a polished one.
The short Peco Y could be quite useful here, and a nice introduction to live-frog point:
I put four in here to reduce the intimidating run of points through the goods yard and steal an extra inch for the bay platform.
The shunting curves are also smoother.

It's not possible to get rid of all the sharp standard Hornby points, partly because their sharp curves are needed, and also because I took it as a design point to use the existing points as much as possible.

The goods train length is limited by the length of the arrival/departure headshunt on the left. A little short Hymek would make a real difference here against some longer diesel locos!

Napoleon said to his generals "ask me for anything but time."
On small layouts "ask me for anything but space"! Sometimes even a few millimetres have to be fought for.

Chris.

.

[Mountain]

You make lovely designs Emetmann.

[Mike Parkes]

I would advise against the use of the setrack curved points, the strange geometry of them means at one location one rail is curved and the other straight with a consequential narrowing of the gauge - this usually shows up as either a loco slowing as it squeezes through the tight spot or simply derailing. Whilst Rob may not have a problem at present with them the time will come when a newly acquired loco does derail on them. Hence the reason why I suggested the Large Y and Large LH combination instead, IME once someone has a few Streamline points on their layout and sees the improved running qualities and appearance of the train passing through them they are keen to replace as many setrack points as possible. If the ones Rob has are in good nick and are not going to be reused then it would be well worth ebaying them to get some monies back. For the Streamline points I would recommend Track Shack https://www.track-shack.co as a supplier, low prices and usually same day despatch with postie hopefully arriving with them the next day.

[robhillwales]

I am struggling a little getting this designed in Scarm, would you mind posting the drawing you have with the part numbers displayed please. I have only Hornby track so will need to do a conversion

Hope your dont mind

Rob