Variations on a theme!

[Roy Parkes]

Don't know if I dare come back to this after all the advice in my previous post http://www.009society.com/forum/index.php?action=post;topic=1981.30;num_replies=43, but not much has happened since January except circumstances have change regarding available time and space and now any layout needs to be 36" x20"!!!!

Few ideas I have come up with all similar, prefer No 4 but perhaps I am crowding things a bit:

[Frank]

I agree, I prefer no. 4 but suggest reducing the sidings in the Goods area from two to one.

The passing loop will help make the operation more interesting and the mill and goods siding will provide options for traffic and shunting.

I'd keep the option open of having the back as a second scenic area instead of just a fiddle yard.   You could decide on this later.

Frank

[Elmgate]

As always, 20" is rather tight for a 180 degree curve. With the addition of the loop and sidings (in all but No 1), the curves you show are as small as 5" radius, which seriously limits the size of loco and stock :( Probably No 1 is the only practical version, and even then, the return curves to the fiddle yard may need to be eased.

[rod335]

Advancing years and hindsight, always 20/20 vision, say resist the urge to cram too much in. It will only make the task of making the result look realistic much harder.

[Roy Parkes]

I agree, I prefer no. 4 but suggest reducing the sidings in the Goods area from two to one.

The passing loop will help make the operation more interesting and the mill and goods siding will provide options for traffic and shunting.

I'd keep the option open of having the back as a second scenic area instead of just a fiddle yard.   You could decide on this later.

Frank

Upon thinking about and now having laid a full scale plan on the baseboard think I would agree, 2 sidings just seems a bit much.

[Roy Parkes]

As always, 20" is rather tight for a 180 degree curve. With the addition of the loop and sidings (in all but No 1), the curves you show are as small as 5" radius, which seriously limits the size of loco and stock :( Probably No 1 is the only practical version, and even then, the return curves to the fiddle yard may need to be eased.

Having now laid out the plan full size, see post above min radius is 7" which I think with 4 wheeled stock should just about be workable, not ideal but that is all the space I have so will need to make do.

[B.Meldon]

It would perhaps be a good idea to test the coupling overhang with all the locos and stock you intend to use on the proposed curves.
I have found that it is more often the couplings that cause problems rather than the wheelbase on tighter curves.

Also coupling up on curves can be a pain so it may be worth testing to see if you can couple all your stock and locos together on the proposed curves without having to move them over by hand.

Brian Meldon

[jimowers]

Just a thought...
I have found the same space vs radius problem and one of the ideas I have been looking into is putting the sidings all on the inside of the track which then allows a larger radius, e.g. 8-9 in. It does mean that the station is then only an impression with a platform on the outer part of the track plan.

[Graeme Dunbar]

I like all your ideas and see potential in all of them.

Success will I think depend on how and where you operate the layout. I see you have changed from your original plan of an open visible main loop to dividing the layout into a scenic side and a fiddle yard. I wonder, given the small size of the layout and the limitations of the fiddle yard if this is not a retrograde step?

You are effectively losing almost half the layout and in trying to maximise the amount of track in view have set the backscene close to the rear of the layout. In doing so there is a danger of accentuating the fact that it is an oval, reducing the relevance of the divide.

From an operational point of view, if you are operating it from the front at home then you will need to peer over the backscene or around it every time you want to carry out operations behind it.

If you are operating at an exhibition (or to entertain visitors at home) from behind the layout then there is very little fiddle yard to fiddle in. Visitors, especially young ones are likely to be more interested in what is happening behind the scenes where all the action is. (As every parent or grandparent of very young children knows, the toy is much less interesting than the box it came in, and as they get older, if they have any curiosity at all they are going to want to know how the toy works.) For exhibition use, if you want to put on a show of more than two trains alternating, then it might be worth considering train cassettes as you will have your work cut out placing and removing stock on the staging track.

An alternative is to provide a scenic break between the two halves and utilize both sides. If the break is such that from (say) a sitting adult, standing child's or standing adult at "exhibition distance" cannot see fully what is going on on the other side of the break it will have a similar effect to a backscene. However an adult standing close to can see all.

If the backscene is essential then another possibility is to divide the layout in two, perhaps with a diagonal or S-shaped (script f-shaped) divider. However, I think a row of terraced cottages on a slight rise, trees etc would serve just as well.

You could then give up more of the space to the back of the layout to add another siding or two for stock storage and you have in effect two layouts for one. Many of the "micro layouts" on Carl Arendt's web site follow this plan. See, e.g. Yurze Ore Mine in the latest (June 2015) 009 News.

This is turning into a lengthy reply, but the other point that struck me is what you intend to do with the passing loop? If it to allow trains to pass, then obviously it sets the length of the trains, which in turn may have implications on the useful length of the sidings. If trains are longer than the passing loop then the configuration is reminiscent of the Timesaver shunting puzzle. If shunting puzzles entertain you, you have space for Inglenook Sidings on the other side.
http://www.wymann.info/ShuntingPuzzles/

[Roy Parkes]

Thanks GraemeD for your post.

I think what I am trying to do is similar to my 7mm NG layout 'Crackington Quay', see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TtlKoi3BxmA, which seemed to get a reasonable comments when at exhibitions.

I hear what you say but think I prefer that trains seem to come from somewhere and then disappear, rather than being able to see the complete oval, agree with your comments about fiddle yard and that may change, as for the loop I have thought about deleting the loop completely, not sure at the moment.

Roy.

[Graeme Dunbar]

Ah, I see!



http://www.carendt.com/small-layout-scrapbook/page-68-december-2007/

The steep site with the cottages clinging to side of the hill and line hugging a narrow ledge helps explain away the track disappearing into the tunnels.