New layout plans

[Lookoutdadsabout]

Hi all,

just designing a new layout in Peco code 75 and wondered if you had any comments on the station section please, functionality, design, anything seriously wrong etc?
Many thanks Jim

[TimberSurf]

Welcome to the forum!
I am no expert, but my first reaction is that goods on the orange have to stop in the station then reverse onto dark purple to get to the goods shed!

[Lookoutdadsabout]

Hi Timbersurf, thank you for your quick reply and input. I think was thinking along the lines of a goods could stop at the station on the orange (downline), then the loco would uncouple. A shunter could then enter the blue (upline) from the goods area, reverse back over the double slip (DS), connect with the goods wagons, pull forward back onto the blue via the DS, the reverse into the goods shed?

[Emettman]

My first suggestion is that the branch-line bay should be allowed to have a run-round loop.
There is room for this without fouling the main line.
Even if the branch passenger services are intended to be solely steam push-pull or DMU, that extra connection would make things much better for branch-line freight, and open the options for the occasional through working. (Excursion?)

My other suggestion would be to lose one track from the loco area, bring everything forward one track width and use that to improve the goods area.
I think the extra track there could make more difference.

Chris

[Lookoutdadsabout]

Hi Chris, Thank you for your valid input, I had intended to use an automatic shuttle module on the branch line, but your suggestion makes sense.
I will look at the suggestion of a better goods area.
The reason I posted this plan, is that I wasn't quite happy with it, but cannot pinpoint why. Operationally it seems like it should work ok.
Thanks once again

[45655]

Yes, There are some things that are seriously wrong with this design.

On the RH side you've got a facing movement from the (westbound line) straight into the headshunt for the loco shed. This is a big no-no because it's a safety issue. You could eliminate this by using a single slip instead of a double slip, but that would leave your "platform 4" inaccessible from the east.

On the left hand end of the layout there probably should be a trailing crossover to allow trains arrive from the west, terminate in platforms 1 or 2 and return to the west. There isn't. The presence of the MPD suggests engines coming off terminating trains.

There are 3 exits onto the main running lines from sidings which aren't protected by either catch/trap points or headshunts. The two short stub sidings coming off the line for "platform 1" are unprotected but too short, and wouldn't be arranged like this. Save yourself the cost of the pair of points. The headshunt to the top right of the plan only protects one of the sidings, the other is unprotected. You could use a double slip here to protect both sidings.

There are no coaling, ash or water facilities for the steam engines (which I assume you have because of the turntable). Steam engines did not run on unicorn farts.

There is generally speaking an overemphasis on passenger facilities, with the goods facilities tacked onto the limited space there left. Goods sheds were generally located halfway along a siding, where wagons could be shunted through (using horse power, later mechanical horses). In steam days, goods were what made the railways money.

I would reduce the number of platforms to 3 (two main line and one branch), increase the goods facilities and reduce the size of the MPD.

[45655]

You have a lot of space, it would be a shame to fill it with something extremely amateurish because you've not looked closely enough at how the prototype works.

[Lookoutdadsabout]

Wow 45655! That told me!
Thanks for your honesty mixed with a little sarcasm, the plan wasn't finished to the extent of including water towers or coaling stations, but would of course of been included and who knows I may well of included a Unicorn fart recycling facility.
How about helping a newbie rather by providing a rough design of how it should be or suggesting a site with some good prototypical layouts.

Not all of us are experts and not all wish to follow the letter of the railway design law, i have been to many many exhibitions and rarely seen catch points. I joined this forum to seek advice as the title is after all, New Railway Modellers, and presumed not for those that are experts.
I will kook at your suggestions and take these on board, but a good plan from you would really help me out, what do you say?
Best regards

[Emettman]

Wow 45655! That told me!

Do note that this was this chap's first two posts at New Railway Modellers.
A definite case of not waiting to get a feel for the place before jumping in with both feet.

Discussion may be had on politeness, directness,
there being more than one set of priorities id designing a model railway,
and where there are good reasons (yes, there are some) for model railway practice to diverge from normal full-scale practice.

Chris.
(who has built a railway or two without even a consistent scale, before now.)

[Lookoutdadsabout]

Hi Chris, all comments taken on board and always up for constructive feedback, but as said , i joined here as a newish modeller and not looking for the strictest of design protocol but some thing that would be fun to do and operate with mixed eras as I love steam, diesel and electric and don't really want be tied to any era. I understand my plan wasn't perfect and that's why I posted for advice and help. But it seems I met an expert who is clearly upset at my 'amateur' offerings.
I can live with that, but plan suggestions would be more useful to me.
Many thanks
Jim

[Bufferstop]

Hi Jim, 45655's comments are founded in the good practice of railway design, but even in the real world there are cases of not following good practice, and as modellers we forever bend the rules. The access to the MPD being with a single rather than double slip is a nicety that the majority of people looking at that layout wouldn't spot, visually there would be little difference, on which basis is it worth bothering about. In fact my main objection to a slip of any kind is that it adds complexity that may impact on reliability. The exit from the loop to the main running line out of my station isn't protected by a spur or a trap point, but as it's almost impossible to see because the loco shed is in the way only I know that.
I would look at giving the goods sidings a bit more space, even if you can't squeeze in an extra siding make some more space between them. If it's a goods yard, vehicles have to be able to get down amongst the sidings for offloading so spread 'em out a bit.

[45655]

Well thanks for not taking my abruptness too personally. You did ask. And I am aware that this forum tends towards trainsets rather than models of railways.

It is essential on the real railway to (1) maximise safety (2) maximise operation convenience (3) minimise signalling (which is expensive) and (4) minimise the expense spent on turnouts versus plain line (which is much cheaper) - so 2 long sidings are better than 4 short ones. Regarding Point 2, from a purely model operational point of view, you're making operating the model much more difficult than it needs to be. You might like this "challenge" but it could start to be frustrating.

As I said, you need a trailing crossover to the left hand side of the layout to allow trains to terminate from the west. Even with this added, there are then rather too many reversals needed to get engines out of the engine shed and onto trains. Try to reduce this if possible.

Other than that the other issues could be lived with, I suppose. The safety of 1 cm tall plastic people isn't too important, and I bet that most of your carriages have none in them anyway.

You could have a look at some track plan books for medium-sized stations. Have a look at some real life track plans. You can do things to keep it realistic.

[Lookoutdadsabout]

Hi 45655,

No worries, all comments taken on board, even the hard hitting ones!

I am in a very fortunate position of having a dedicated garden building with 5.5m x 2.5m to use. I have built the rest of the layout and fiddle yard, but after months of computer designing, looking at plans and various you tube clips, I came up with the plan posted.

I have just turned 60 and my grandson of 5, has a real keen interest in trains, so as to encourage some well needed new blood into this hobby, I thought I would upgrade my 8 x 4 layout to utilise the new space. A little ambitious maybe, but something he could complete in his life time, rather than mine.

'Rivet Counting' is not the layout for me. I want to run Steam, diesel, electric (yes with a 3rd rail installed) etc, any trucks, any carriages, it will not be a train set or fully modelled to convention, but as you say need to be run safely and something that will hold our interest, as too be honest it will never be exhibited.

I have looked at lots of online layout plans, real railway plans and lots of you tube clips etc, so a little worried now as the cost of creating the station area (4.5m x 80cm) for such a large layout will be significant and I want to get it correct, again hence the posting.

I understand you probably cannot help me as you seem to be driven by the real railway structure and design principles, which is fine, each to their own. Although, how about you provide a rough design (pencil and paper) and PM me, I will transfer to Anyrail?

Many thanks

[Bufferstop]

Hi 45655, Perhaps you would like to introduce yourself via the Welcome thread. The site is called New Railway Modellers Forum,, it's aim in life being to help and advise those of any age coming or returning to the hobby. So a lot of layouts will look somewhat train set like. Many of our members just want to run some trains, extra track which will hopefully never have anything run over it probably doesn't make sense to them. If they get bitten with the desire to put in all the right bits, they'll soon start asking what's that bit for, especially if they are tempted to replicate a prototype track plan.
If I don't put in a spur at the exit from a loop, that cannot be seen by me or anyone viewing the layout, without standing on a step stool, whose going to know? I'd always asses a layout on overall look rather than fidelity to the prototype. You could lay out the trackwork of a major station, using all the right bits in set track, or you could simplify it and use large radius points, with accurate track centres, point rodding and signal wires. Which is going to look at first sight more railway like.

[Emettman]

OK, 14.75 ft by 2.65 ft.
(4.5m x 80cm)

I've had a play and have got as far as a messy sketch.

(edit) If you send me your e-mail address I should be able to send this as an .any file that can be worked with.

Both mains have extra platforms (because the frequency of model trains is nearer that of the Circle line.)
All 4 platforms have tolerable loco access to let loco-hauled trains reverse.
(DMU's are so much easier. 2 sets of trailing crossovers, both directions sorted.)
2 double and 2 single slips.

The busiest line may well be the branch line run-round which provides access to the locos and to the goods yard and headshunt.
The goods yard is at the front because the far simpler track at the rear should give fever problems.

A one-directional turn-around using a pair of terminal bays would be simpler, but it would need reversing arrangements (or a return loop) in the fiddle yard.

Just thinking.

Chris