Layout design

I've not posted here for a while, simply because I've had to more-or-less abandon my hobby through a complete lack of space.

However, thanks to some long, hard thinking, I have found space for a semi-permanent terminus layout with a fiddle yard. This will be constructed on two, very sturdy, 6-legged pasting tables each 2'x6' and in an L-shape (which can then have all buildings of >2" removed and be folded up when not in use).

However, I'm going to hold my hands up and say I'm rubbish at layout design (in fact, I'm rubbish at designing things, period, which I think stems from having a scientific mind ;-)). I was wondering if someone could point me in the direction of a website or book of fiddle-yard-based 00-gauge track plans which could at the very least give me a starting point.

Cheers, Mark

Reply to
Mark
Loading thread data ...

On 04/11/2006 13:27, Mark said,

There's always space somewhere...

I don't know about websites, but there are several books from Wild Swan that are well worth a look. Two sitting under my left elbow as I type are Barry Norman's "Designing a Layout" and Iain Rice's "Light Railway Layout Design". Also by Iain Rice is the snappily entitled "An Approach to Model Railway Layout Design - Finescale in Small Spaces." (Phew!)

You don't need to be put off by the light railway or the finescale implications of the titles. You also don't need to follow the plans slavishly, but at least one track plan and scenario will jump out at you.

Wild Swan Publishing

1-3 Hagbourne Road Didcot Oxfordshire OX11 8DP 01235816478

They haven't quite caught up with the 20th century yet, so phoning or writing is the only way. They also haven't grasped this new-fangled credit card or interweb thingy yet!

HTH

Reply to
Paul Boyd

Or using a book retailer who has got the hang of this interweb thingie :-) Wild Swan distribute through normal book retailers.

The three titles Paul suggested would be my recommendations also. Whilst they have a finescale bias, they would work fine with standard OO Peco track. They also teach a few tricks about composition.

The other thing I'd recommend is trying the layout out before committing too much time and money. Two things which can be done quickly and cheaply;

1) Build a 3-d mockup (model of model! ) using balsa, cardboard, poster paints, etc. Nothing too fancy, just the main structures, line of tracks drawn, main scenic relief, etc. Scale around 1:4 to 1:8 of model. It helps make sure it "looks right". (*) 2) Draw track plan out. Either do it full size on some old wallpaper, or to scale. If full size, put your model rollingstock out on it and check you can run-round the train, that the sidings work, that you can shunt where you want, etc. If to scale, then do the same, but with some scale cardboard plans of the rollingstock. Works quite well at 1:2 or 1:3 scale for the size of model you are planning.

(* definition of "looks right" = whatever looks right to you, its your model railway, not someone elses )

- Nigel

Reply to
Nigel Cliffe

Especially with UK track plans, one needs to study the prototype and learn how to design a track plan. All the Big Four and subtle differences in how they laid out the point work, especially at rural stations. The use and placement of trailing points, single slips, goods yard access, head-shunts, etc., etc..

From what I've seen in photos etc., track layout is a lot different these days than it used to be in steam days. Single lead juntions are one example. One way you can tell a "preservation" track plan from a real steam era trackplan is that the preservationists lay track to a post steam era standard and not how it was done "back then".

-- Cheers

Roger T.

Home of the Great Eastern Railway

formatting link

Reply to
Roger T.

steam era

Do they? Perhaps in your neck of the woods, but just about all preserved railways in the UK preserve the operating methods used at a point sometime in history that is also compatible with modern safety regulations. Modern railways can use leading turnouts due to modern turnout operating / locking methods, a preserved railway that has preserved the old manual signalling / turnout control will limit the number of leading turnouts due to the increased complexity of locking leading blades against accidental movement.

Reply to
Jerry

There were different steam-era ways even for the same station.

The typical passing station on a single track GWR line was shunted off the running lines without a headshunt.

The sidings were always accessed from the trailing side so there was only one facing turnout at the entrance to the passing loop, protected by a facing point lock.

If a siding happened to be on the facing side (which was actually quite common especially when the passing loop was added afterwards), it was still accessed from the trailing side, by a diamond crossing over the facing running line.

(ASCII diagram best viewed using fixed font!)

/==================| / / / ========\========/=================================== \ / \ \ / \ ===/========================================\======

You don't often see this modelled because it takes up valuable space on the layout.

In BR days this was often replaced by a facing turnout.

You can see this in the signal box diagram of Arley at

formatting link
levers 15 and 17 are the facing point locks.

What is unusual here is that in steam days the distant signals would have been fixed but here they operate.

Reply to
Christopher A. Lee

OT, that has got to be the worst designed web site I've seen, probably ever! :~(

What with the miss use of frames and no alternative content (not even an explanation as to why the user is getting a blank page) it really is bad, the annoying thing is that all the information could be presented on a non framed web page!

Reply to
Jerry

Gotta disagree with you there Gerry. Preservation railways do not lay out station track plans the way it was done back in steam days. Swanage, as one example. Nothing like the steam era track layout.

-- Cheers

Roger T.

Home of the Great Eastern Railway

formatting link

Reply to
Roger T.

And a perfect example of modern "preservation" track design and probably nothing like it would have been in the steam era.

-- Cheers

Roger T.

Home of the Great Eastern Railway

formatting link

Reply to
Roger T.

Also of interest are two of Iain's newer books from Atlantic publishing. Main Lines in Modest Spaces, and Designs for Urban Layouts.

Reply to
John Ruddy

steam

safety

modern

locking

Swanage, as one

We were talking about the design requirements, it stands to reason that no preserved railway will keep the original layout due to the fact that most sites are now either a terminus, have far more sidings and have a far more intense timetable. The fact is, because of the safety equipments and the complexity of facing turnout locks on any mechanically signalled (passenger carrying) track layout, facing turnouts will only be used when they can't be avoided - even to the extent that they might prefer to shunt ECS via un protected facing turnouts and thus to a departure platform rather than alter the locking-bars / tappets in the lever frame and add the required lock to the turnout so they can use the turnouts for passenger carrying trains.

Reply to
Jerry

BR steam era did that sort of simplification pre-Beeching. That was my point.

The "modern preservation" part of the layout is the use of operating distant signals.

The GWR and BR (Western Region) used fixed distant signals in that situation - on single track lines they only used opertaing distants in conjunction with level crossings.

Reply to
Christopher A. Lee

The use of a bi-directional "main" and a "loop" are steam era? I think not. If anything, this is North American where "passing sidings" (UK "Loops") have always been designated "main" and "siding" and either has always been bi-directional. In steam days, general UK practice was to 'keep left' with "Up" and "Down" platform lines and no bi-directional signalling. Again, generally speaking. There may have been of rare exception. There would have been no splitting home at the entrance to each end of the loop and the connection to the siding would have been trailing from either the Up or Down road and thus not requiring a facing point lock. This signalling seems typical of most preservation lines and in keeping with steam era signalling of branchlines, but is driven by the economics of preservation.

As as may be, but the loops would have been "Up" and "Down" and not "Main" and "Loop". The fixed distance would have been a cost saving feature.

-- Cheers

Roger T.

Home of the Great Eastern Railway

formatting link

Reply to
Roger T.

Where did I say that?

And it's not a siding in the UK. It's a passing loop.

However there is a common exception - where the box can be switched out.

In this picture of Carrog in BR steam days there is a splitting signal, and there is no signalman in the box. The train is running through thr right hand platform. Standard Sunday working.

formatting link

There would have been one splitting signal if the box could be switched out.

In the signal box diagram of Arley there is only one splitting signal.

Once again, where there had previously been a trailing siding that crossed the other line, pre nationalisation, this was often replaced in BR steam days by a facing turnout - in BR steam days. In BR steam days.

This pre-dates preservation.

Look at the layouts in any of the books on single track or cross country lines. For example Cricklade in the MSWJR book where the signal box diagram dates from BR days with facing siding entry, while the station layout plan shows a trailing connection from the other line and a diamond crossing.

And in steam days, both GWR and BR pre-preservation the distant signals would still have been fixed and not operating. As an operational measure not a cost-cutting one.

No. The fixed distants were standard GWR and BR (Western Region) operating procedure, to reduce speed. Apart from this the signalling is what would have been used to allow the box to be switched out.

Reply to
Christopher A. Lee

"Christopher A. Lee"

That's the essence of what I wrote. Read the above.

And there were not many single line loops that were switched out. The examples you gave were, I believe, GWR which doesn't make it applicable to other reagions.

Not arguing about BR(W) or GWR practice. I still say it was as much of an economy measure as an operating one.

-- Cheers

Roger T.

Home of the Great Eastern Railway

formatting link

Reply to
Roger T.

It was nothng like US practice, so why bring that up?

You got the situation where the siding access crossed the other line, when the passing loop was constructed at a station which did not previously have one, and in what became the facing direction.

There were plenty on the GWR/WR. Most commonly on Sundays but also "out of hours".

And I had specifically mentioned the GWR, not the other lines/regions.

Then you're the only one.

Reply to
Christopher A. Lee

Indeed, perhaps Roger has never heard of the phrase "Approach Caution", why even consider a moving distance arm (with all it's locking needs) when it's lever would never be used? There is no saving to be had from doing something that would have been done anyway!

Reply to
Jerry

Exactly.

Which raises the question of why Arley now uses operating distants.

Reply to
Christopher A. Lee

I have, but what and who's to say that "Approach Caution" wasn't devised as a cost saving for use on branch and other low traffic routes? As is pointed out above, "...why even consider a moving distance arm (with all it's locking needs) when it's lever would never be used?" Sounds like a cost saving to me. :-)

But, obviously, we seem to disagree so, so be it.

-- Cheers

Roger T.

Home of the Great Eastern Railway

formatting link

Reply to
Roger T.

On 04/11/2006 21:29, Jerry said,

Just out of interest, I wonder if anyone does actually still use a browser that can't display frames. I've just converted my own website to frames (without altering the appearance or function), but I do at least have a caustic comment for non-frame browser users so they know why they're not seeing it as it should be. I decided that although frames are the Work of Stan, they have become so commonplace that I decided it's time to move on. I've tried FrontPage, but my ISP at the time didn't implement it properly, so there were all sorts of problems.

(And yes, the website you were referring to is a good example of how and why not to use frames.)

Reply to
Paul Boyd

PolyTech Forum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.