Sherston - where 1930s GWR meets Kato Unitrack!

[Knight of the Thistle]

That's great Bruce - thank you.

I've squeezed a point in (see attached)... the station area is now gradually creeping further right than I intended it to, but when I get the track down the reality might well be that it doesn't need to take up quite the amount of room I have it marked down for at the moment.

One other thing is that the point now means I need to think more about the electrics; I wanted to avoid Cab Control etc but might need to read up on it a little as that run around loop could need to be switched between two controllers.

I'm very conscious that in the real world there would probably be a run around loop on the down bay as well, but I'm running out of space and think for that I can get away with a railcar/autocoach shuttle.

Thanks again for the very valuable feedback,

Matthew

PS: Must remember to upgrade to full Anyrail!

[Newportnobby]

Ignore the fact I've used set track, but to remove the awkward 'S' curves at the RHS on the Up line I'd suggest making the rightmost crossing part of the curve as it will provide smoother and better running..............

[Knight of the Thistle]

Thanks Newportnobby; I would definitely do that if I had more room, but the radius of the Kato #6 points makes that a non-starter.

With the Down Bay only suitable for railcars/autocoaches they should be the only traffic that uses the S bend when crossing over from the bay to the Up line, so hopefully I can get away with it! I suppose one option might be for me to look at a diamond crossing instead of that crossover from down to the branch as I don't think it would ever be used going from up to down and it would create a smoother transition but I can't get the unitrack dimensions to fit!

[GScaleBruce]

One other thing is that the point now means I need to think more about the electrics; I wanted to avoid Cab Control etc but might need to read up on it a little as that run around loop could need to be switched between two controllers.

Simplest solution might be a dpdt switch that connects the loop either to the branch controller or to the up main controller with appropriate isolating rail joiners?

I'm very conscious that in the real world there would probably be a run around loop on the down bay as well, but I'm running out of space and think for that I can get away with a railcar/autocoach shuttle.

Possibly, but the bay/dock could as you say be operated by a railcar, or shunt using the loop between trains.

[Newportnobby]

Thanks Newportnobby; I would definitely do that if I had more room, but the radius of the Kato #6 points makes that a non-starter.

I tried it using the Kato library in SCARM and it threw the geometry of the RH curves out so, sorry, but as you were.

[Leon]

Mathew, like you my project is GWR and my track is Kato. I'll be following your progress, but if I can achieve as much as you did with your earlier layout, I'll be a happy camper!

The guys here have been very helpful (though I don't always understand the suggestions), and I've made a lot of alterations since I started, without compromising the original plan. Kato track IS challenging, but I've overcome most, if not all, of the problems. It takes a lot of time (or, at least it did for me), but much less time than I would have needed to learn to work with flexible track and points requiring separate motors and lots of soldering (which I've never done). I don't need for my layout to be totally prototypical - just an honest effort to be as realistic as I can be with my limited skills, and accurately show the working of trains on the lines I've constructed. I'm not sure why there is resistence to double crossovers. They do save a lot of space, and I think will look good in the finished layout - while allowing easier changes from line to line (there has to be a better way of saying that!).

One more thing about Kato. I've read many comments about #4 track, so I've made a good effort to avoid it. I think it looks better in the sidings, though. Can anybody comment on their use of #4 points in sidings? I have four locos (Pannier Tank 5768, Prairie Tank Engine 6110, 0-4-2T 1420, and Pannier Tank 6407) for shunting (though one will be the push-pull for the autocoach). None of the trains on main lines will encounter #4 points as the plan is presently configured.

Finally, I've been advised (and I've read in many places) to keep it simple. That would be good advice if I expected to do other layouts in the future. My future is rather limited and this will be my only attempt - so I've chosen a challenging plan that has already given me much satisfaction, and will provide a lot of pleasure over the coming months (and years?). Good luck to you with your new layout, and do post regularly. I've a lot to learn!

Leon

[Newportnobby]

One more thing about Kato. I've read many comments about #4 track, so I've made a good effort to avoid it. I think it looks better in the sidings, though. Can anybody comment on their use of #4 points in sidings? I have four locos (Pannier Tank 5768, Prairie Tank Engine 6110, 0-4-2T 1420, and Pannier Tank 6407) for shunting (though one will be the push-pull for the autocoach). None of the trains on main lines will encounter #4 points as the plan is presently configured.

A lot of reading, Leon, but I would refer you to these threads............

http://www.ngaugeforum.co.uk/SMFN/index.php?topic=40632.msg494659#msg494659

http://www.ngaugeforum.co.uk/SMFN/index.php?topic=37681.0

As always, I would add the caveat no one loco is the same as another as they are all hand made so my results can only be taken as guidelines.