 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion Groups General ModelsRailroadsRocketsRadio Controlled Air ModelsHelicoptersLand ModelsWater ModelsModelGeeks.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Model Forum / General / Railroads / February 2004Which track plan?
Having got to this stage earlier than I anticipated, I'm now forced into choosing a final trackplan. At the moment, I've been totally non-commital, and just ordered flexi-track without any points. Been having a play with xTrkCad, and have come up with the following two ideas - both based on 'New Quay' by Ken Gibbons, featured in the 'Modelling the British Rail Era' book. The initial plan suited the size of the boards, but I've actually got a little more space than I thought now, so I've been able to add to it. In both cases, the layouts have been 'drawn' on xTrkCad using Peco Setrack (Because I haven't got the full version of said software and I'm not entirely sure how to use it properly yet) - the straight track leading off the board heads to the fiddle yard. I'd be grateful for opinions and advice on either - at the moment, I'm leaning towards plan 2. I also hope to various deitys that the links work... http://www.freewebs.com/sussex-rail/Plan1.JPG http://www.freewebs.com/sussex-rail/Plan2.JPG __________________________________________ ________________________ Stuart Fairway ICQ#: 54495009 Current ICQ status: + More ways to contact me __________________________________________________________________ Test; http://www.freewebs.com/sussex-rail/Plan%202.JPG > Having got to this stage earlier than I anticipated, I'm now forced into > choosing a final trackplan. At the moment, I've been totally non-commital, [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > More ways to contact me > __________________________________________________________________ Right; http://www.freewebs.com/sussex-rail/Plan%201.JPG http://www.freewebs.com/sussex-rail/Plan%202.JPG Those 'should' work. Sorry for hitting your newsreaders with a couple of extra messages, but as ever, it all worked perfectly in testing... > Test; http://www.freewebs.com/sussex-rail/Plan%202.JPG > > Having got to this stage earlier than I anticipated, I'm now forced into [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > > More ways to contact me > > __________________________________________________________________ Stu... I get an error message..."PAGE NOT FOUND" for both links. > Test; http://www.freewebs.com/sussex-rail/Plan%202.JPG > > Having got to this stage earlier than I anticipated, I'm now forced into [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > > More ways to contact me > > __________________________________________________________________ Cheers - that's just bloomin' typical Right - once again I apologise, but these should work; http://www.geocities.com/sfairway/Plan1.JPG http://www.geocities.com/sfairway/Plan2.JPG Make sure you copy and paste those links rather than just clicking on them, because Geocities doesen't allow hotlinking. > Stu... I get an error message..."PAGE NOT FOUND" for both links. > [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > > > More ways to contact me > > > __________________________________________________________________ There's also Plan 3 - again, copy & paste the link. http://www.geocities.com/sfairway/plan3.JPG > Cheers - that's just bloomin' typical > [quoted text clipped - 43 lines] > > > > More ways to contact me > > > > __________________________________________________________________ > There's also Plan 3 - again, copy & paste the link. > > http://www.geocities.com/sfairway/plan3.JPG Of the three this one has to be the best, you have a steam shed which of course suggests loco hauled trains, plan 3 is the only one to include a loco escape. Without it you could only run autocoaches (and <spit>DMUs etc</spit>).  SignatureAll the best, Chris Wilson That's cwilson at britwar with a dot uk and dot co on the end. (Reply address is blackholed) http://www.britwar.co.uk - British Wargames http://www.the-dormouse.org - The Dormouse Line Model Railway Stu, >There's also Plan 3 - again, copy & paste the link. > >http://www.geocities.com/sfairway/plan3.JPG Plan 3 looks the best. You've got a run round loop for a start, but I would reverse the layout of the crossover at the LH (platform end) end so that you get a larger distance between the fouling points on the platform road to accommodate a decent length of vehicles when running round them. This may mean moving the other crossover and the lead into the loco sheds along a bit to allow an adequate head shunt on the platform road. As someone else has said, it's a very wide layout for a single line branch terminus with a lot of loco stabling. Look at shaping your baseboard to follow the track shape so that the width gets down to about two feet at the narrowest point. You could also look at laying the loco shed roads out parallel to the main track to cut down on the overall width as well. Jim. =>Cheers - that's just bloomin' typical => =>Right - once again I apologise, but these should work; => =>http://www.geocities.com/sfairway/Plan1.JPG =>http://www.geocities.com/sfairway/Plan2.JPG => =>Make sure you copy and paste those links rather than just clicking on them, =>because Geocities doesen't allow hotlinking. Yeah, if you use Internet Exploder. Heh heh :-) My newsreader just opens Nscape w/ that URL, and show me your page. Question? Will you work this from one side only? If so, then four feet is way too deep for comfort. 2-1/2' is about the limit, even if you place the table low enough that you can reach that far without fouling structures, etc. Unless you have a titanium steel back... :-) The track arrangement looks good to me, but then I don't know how close it is to the prototype, nor how close you want it to be. Wolf Kirchmeir ................................. If you didn't want to go to Chicago, why did you get on this train? (Garrison Keillor) <just one w and plain ca for correct address> I'd personally go for plan 3 but without the crossover on the left (as we view the plans on screen). However, you might want that left in for a run round, and if that's the case, I'd prefer a run round that doesn't encroach on the 'main' (passenger) line. Thanks for all the comments. I think Plan 3 is 'the one' - but with some minor adjustments as suggested - perhaps bringing the steam shed parralel with the Diesel Stabling sidings - something which I could easily do, but can't seem to get right on xTrkCad. That way I could bring the whole track plan 'forward' a little - meaning I wouldn't have to lean over so far. Thinning the board isn't really an option due to the layout of the loft, but that would at least give scope for scenic modelling behind the track, rather than a huge area in front of it. Would certainly make for easier operation at least. Re the crossovers - I've been toying with the track plans for a while now, and I wanted to include a loco runaround to make for easier operation as much as anything else. However, I was flicking through a few old magazines last night, and I could always get rid of one, and use it as an excuse to justify a station pilot - the long siding/headshunt next to the 'main' line would then have to be long enough to accomodate the longest, empty stock workings as well as the odd longer freight (most will just be a few vans at most I'd imagine). If I did that, I'd remove the left crossover, having the pilot draw the empty stock just short of the tunnel to fiddle yard, then push it back, through the points and then pull it into the long siding. The loco could then run light into the station area and 'off scene', ready for the pilot to push the coaches back into the platform. Failing that, I could always have a short loco road branching off the 'main' line - but I quite like the idea of a loco running light engine through the tunnel, then working back to connect to its train. Apologies for any appalling grammar/spelling errors - it's 8.42 am, and I've already made one mistake this morning - heaping sugar into my tea. At least it's not a work day! Stu Plan 4; http://www.geocities.com/sfairway/Plan4.JPG Moved forward a little, though it would certainly be possible to move it forward a little more - though I'm a little worried about the fiddle yard if I do this. As before, the straight track leading off scene goes to the fiddle yard, though as I'm laying flexitrack (which arrived today), this could easily be curved after the tunnel mouth. I've also managed to move the shed sidings so that they are much closer to the diesel stabling sidings, which would look quite effective. Crossover removed as per last post. > Thanks for all the comments. I think Plan 3 is 'the one' - but with some > minor adjustments as suggested - perhaps bringing the steam shed parralel [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > > Stu =>Thanks for all the comments. I think Plan 3 is 'the one' - but with some =>minor adjustments as suggested - perhaps bringing the steam shed parralel =>with the Diesel Stabling sidings - something which I could easily do, but =>can't seem to get right on xTrkCad. Don't allow the limitations of the software to dictate the plan. Just think of the plan as a design concept - a mere guide to laying out the tracks full size on wrapping paper tacked to your table top. Rearrange as needed at that stage. You could also make simple cardboard-box mockups of your buildings to get an idea of what the whole thing will look like - and maybe additional ideas about track (re)arrangements. -- I'd put in a runaround no matter what, since there will be times when you wnat to get the engine to other end of the wagons. Looks like a nice little terminus, with lots of operating potential. Have fun! Wolf Kirchmeir ................................. If you didn't want to go to Chicago, why did you get on this train? (Garrison Keillor) <just one w and plain ca for correct address> I did manage to pull them paralell in the the end (Plan 4 is the result). Cheers - I think it will be interesting to operate, and give me plenty to do. > =>Thanks for all the comments. I think Plan 3 is 'the one' - but with some > =>minor adjustments as suggested - perhaps bringing the steam shed parralel [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > (Garrison Keillor) > <just one w and plain ca for correct address> > Re the crossovers - I've been toying with the track plans for a while now, > and I wanted to include a loco runaround to make for easier operation as [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > yard, then push it back, through the points and then pull it into the long > siding. Don't you think a station pilot for a single platform terminus is a bit over the top? A horse would be more likely, except for the diesel shed, or whatever those smelly things are stored in. Ken. Oh, and I was looking forward to building that Airfix Spitfire too :( Plan 5; http://www.geocities.com/sfairway/plan5.JPG Run-around reinstated - but moved, as suggested earlier. The whole thing would be brought forward in practice, as I mentioned earlier though. Might shorten the Shed roads and lengthen the headshunt though., Shed brought paralell with the main running line - the result of quite a lot of planning, as well as advice from you lot (Vastly more experienced modellers than myself no doubt). > > Re the crossovers - I've been toying with the track plans for a while now, > > and I wanted to include a loco runaround to make for easier operation as [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Ken. > Oh, and I was looking forward to building that Airfix Spitfire too :( Spitfires were just icing on the cake, Hurricanes did the real work. Ken. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.