My Layout - Feedback required

[Shazam75]

Hi All

I am trying to develop a layout based on Western Victoria - Australia in the 70s - I tried the idea of a hidden staging yard on the southern end but don't like the idea that the trains are hidden and that the trains are not being controlled from Point A to its destination or Point B.

IN the plan, I am looking at making up trains at Stawham and taking them to Meredith, via the back (Johnson then pass Farplace then onto Meredith if a train was leaving Stawham.

The shed is 6 meters in length and 4.6 meters wide.

Are there any issues with operations with this layout?

Cheers!

 

[Beachbum]

These are my personal preferences and biases only:

I don't like using doubleslip turnouts. I think they can turn into a maintenance problem. Looks like you have 3 in Stawham.

If you are switching (shunting) Stawham or the spur at Meredith, you're going to foul the mainline. If this is acceptable to you, no problem. Otherwise, I'd add a yard lead or drill track at Stawham and I'd have the Meredith spur come off the passing siding.

Overall, I really like your plan!

 

[AyTrane]

I think the track comes too close to the wall. You should give yourself at least 7.5 - 8cm of clearance. Can you expand the width of your shelving to accommodate more scenery?

 

[UP2CSX]

I agree that the tracks are much too close to the walls or edge of the layout so moving those in a bit should be a priority. I think you'd also be better off to move the
Stawham station closer to the mainline and move your industrial tracks behind the station. You realy don't have enough room to switch those industry tracks without fouling the ladder track that leads to the station. It seems like the mainline and maybe one station service track should be enough for the passenger station and you can run your industrial track behind the stat. You'll have more room for switching and won't interfere with passenger traffic.

 

[DaWolf85]

Over on the left, I'm seeing massive S-curve problems for your passenger equipment, you might want to work on that.
If you're up to the challenge of maintaining three double slips (not to mention paying for them), fine, they add visual interest and give you a bit more space, as well as help to remove S-curve problems. But normal turnouts are annoying enough in terms of maintenance, double slips with their greater complexity make it much worse, so if you want a simple layout to maintain, I'd strongly advise dropping at least one or two of those. The one at the flour mill especially is not necessary and really makes your layout look unprototypical.

Also, what's the deal with the tracks from Far Place? (lol nice name btw) Do they go into tunnels or did you just not connect them right?

In terms of you maybe fouling your mainline, personally, I find that this adds greater operating interest, but if you want your layout to be more simple, make the track plan more complex.

Is this going to be a "dark" railroad (without signals) or will you have signals?

Also, along the walls, on the single track, if you have enough space I'd add a couple industries or something.

 

[Shazam75]

Hi Guys

Thanks alot for your feedback - really appreciate it.

The idea of this layout is to make up a train at Stawham, then this train will traverse the 'countryside' passing two stations, then arriving at another station called Meredith.

Yes, that track on the left top is actually connected to the mainline track - forgot to connect it. Yes, I will foul the main at Stawham so I will correct that my putting a lead track there - but not sure how I will foul the main at Meredith - because I have a passing track from the main.

Your right, the tracks do come too close expecially near 'FarPlace' but I am trying to create some distance between 'FarPlace' and 'Stawham' to make it feel these are two different places.

Not sure what UP2CSX means if moving Stawham towards the mainline as it is on the mainline.

Remember I am dipicting Western Victoria Australia, we dont have any industries near mainlines, only in towns.

The layout will eventually have signals

Cheers

 

[Beachbum]

If you pull a string of cars off the stub ended spur at Meredith, you're going to foul the mainline to the left of Meredith unless I'm not perceiving the scale of your drawing correctly. If the whole Meredith track segment is meant to be a passing siding or branch with Johnson as the mainline, no problem.

What if you doubletracked the whole thing with crossovers? One loop could be mainly passenger and one mainly freight. Just a random thought...

 

[DaWolf85]

The idea of this layout is to make up a train at Stawham, then this train will traverse the 'countryside' passing two stations, then arriving at another station called Meredith.

Then you probably should move those tracks off the walls a bit to make room for scenery. But be careful when you do that, as you don't want to create any S-curves that will stymie your passenger equipment.

Yes, that track on the left top is actually connected to the mainline track - forgot to connect it. Yes, I will foul the main at Stawham so I will correct that my putting a lead track there - but not sure how I will foul the main at Meredith - because I have a passing track from the main.

The passing track is inconsequential to this matter, as it ends before the switch into the industries. Extending it on the left would be the best option in this case.

Not sure what UP2CSX means if moving Stawham towards the mainline as it is on the mainline.

As I understand what he said, he suggested putting the industries at the back and the main line in the front. I agree with him, as a moving train rolling through the town is more interesting to look at than a stopped one.

Remember I am dipicting Western Victoria Australia, we dont have any industries near mainlines, only in towns.

I don't live in Australia and have never been there, so I'll take your word for it.

The layout will eventually have signals

That's good, it looks to me like the kind of railroad that signals could add some interest.

Overall, though, I like the layout.

 

[UP2CSX]

DaWolf has it correct, move the station building itself so it is on the main and have all the industrial track behind the station. Railroads generally don't like to have passenger stations where all the industrial switching is done in front of the station for both operational and safety issues. It will look better on the layout as well, since your switchers can be busy with the industries wihtout obscuring the view of what I assume will be one of your focal point buildings.

 

[Shazam75]

Hi guys

I have changed the layout - I now have staging which represents the rest of the world. Also the loop at the bottom will be going, so the only crossing point is at INGLE - so trains only cross once - which is much more realistic.

Feedback appreciated:

Cheers
Shelton.

 

[UP2CSX]

Much better. Moving the station against the wall will make it more viewable and you can still see the train action in front. The staging yard looks great. The only thing I would do is add a couple of crossover switches in the middle so trains can bypass standing cuts of cars.

 

[tankist]

clean, not overloaded with track, continuous layout. can be interesting

 

[DaWolf85]

clean, not overloaded with track, continuous layout. can be interesting

Especially the scenery. This looks very much like a scenery layout and not an operating layout. (Meaning that the main focus is on scenery, not operation)

 

[Shazam75]

Hi Guys

Thanks alot for your feedback - the thing that prompted this change is that I fell for the beginners trap - laying too much track! Unfortunatley I thought I would like a yard as a focal point so I wont get bored and a yard gives me plenty of 'operation' (First plan presented).

But the lesson I learnt is that, with the space I have, do one thing and do it thoroughly. So Plan 1 was a continuous layout with a yard in the middle! Turned out to be a bad idea - because I had too much track. If I just liked shunting, then the yard would be OK. But I realised that I like watching trains run much more. If I had more space, yes I could also have a yard many time further away. But, best to concentrate on one concept. I think this will be my final plan - oh, that double slip will be going as the curve on the bottom is too tight for me at 24inches. So I will just have three tracks at INGLE.


Yes, gives enough room for scenery which I think makes a huge difference.

Thanks again.

Cheers

 

[Beachbum]

Hi Guys

Thanks alot for your feedback - the thing that prompted this change is that I fell for the beginners trap - laying too much track!

Exactly. This is a hobby not a career, so I shudder when I see overly complex plans with tons of turnouts, etc. I know I don't have the time and / or patience to be constantly troubleshooting electrical and track problems. Plus complex trackwork is the exception not the rule on most real railroads (yes, there are amazing things like the approaches to Union Station in Chicago, but...)

But I realised that I like watching trains run much more. [...] gives enough room for scenery which I think makes a huge difference.

Yup. A high scenery to track ratio is usually much more prototypical unless you're in an industrial area or yard.