A new family 8x4 layout

[Jaggzuk]

Hi Guys

I am looking to redesign; my sons (two boys of 5 and 2 1/2 years old), roundy-roundy layout to try and bring in a bit more operational fun and scenic life to our train time.

Currently we have an 8x4 baseboard with a twin loop, two very short sidings, a tunnel in the corner and a few second hand and new kit built buildings. In the main, this layout was thrown together a year ago with what track and points (peco setrack) I had available.

Now as the eldest’s operation skills have improved, coupling, shunting, DCC and two train control, I think a layout that will be more enjoyable to run is needed. Plus, we do not have any scenery at present as I always knew it was a very temporary track plan.

This is our current track plan.



What this does allow is two independent train running but with the ability to switch loops. But there are no real sidings to talk of. The key thing I keep being asked is to build is a bridge, both a rail over rail and a road bridge. So therefore the new layout must have some form of track gradient.

As the youngest is now showing all the signs of being “mad” on too (sorry Mummy), the new layout will still need to allow for two independent train operations; with some form of conflict protection.

I had a good search on the web for 8x4, twill loop, twin level plans and came across this one.



Taken from www.freetrackplans.com

I really like this one as it actually offers a long single run in the form of a folded figure of eight, with some sidings for shunting and a double track station. Plus it allows for a long steady gradient between the station and the over bridge. Prototypical running is not a requirement for this layout, but fun is. 8x4 is the fixed size for now; Daddys big layout, North Marsh Road, is still being planned!

So with a bit of a tweak, I came up with this as a variation, as I wanted to keep the tunnel in the corner that we have already made.



The blue is low level and the red is high level. I have drawn this in SCARM, all curves are 2^nd and 3^rd radii and the gradients have come in at about 3.2% to 3.5%, so just about ok; that is with the over bridge having a 70mm track to track clearance.

I really like the junction at the station as the layout it is a little more unseal and allows for loop switching. BUT the big thing that I have ended up with is the loops actually cross over at this point and therefore this creates a huge risk for opposing direction running conflicts (crashes) with two boys on the controllers!

I currently have the NCE Powercab and will add the CAB05 Intermediate Slave later. I will also wire for full DC operation as we have some friends who do not yet have any DCC locos.

So any thoughts on this plan? How can I add some form of protection to prevent head on crashes. Is there some form of automatic DCC circuit (simple) that I can employ to stop a train if the points at the junction are set against it or if there is another train about to cross its path?

Comments welcome.

Paul

Edited October 31, 2015 by Jaggzuk

[unravelled]

Looks good for play value, which is the plan. The simplification I'd make is to lose the  diamond crossing and replace it with the upper left hand point it was connected to. You don't lose any operational possibilites, and trains can prototypically snake across the two crossovers instead.

 

As for the gradients, I hope you are splitting them so that the front station area is at a mid height, then  the blue curves can fall as the red ones rise. This will resut in more gradients, but shallower ones.

 

As for the crash prevention, why not install a couple of kill switches which anyone can access, or do DCC systems have these as standard?

 

Have fun

 

Dave

[Zomboid]

I'd look to ditch the diamond and replace that with a crossover as unravelled suggests.

I'd also try to use large radius switches for that which will look a lot nicer as a train snakes across.

But there will be crashes. They are essential for small children, they certainly were for me. Just don't let them play with anything fragile.

[Jaggzuk]

Cheers guys for the comments.

 

I take note of the crossing viewpoint, but apart from simplicity an element of prototypical ops, would there be any other reason for not using the crossing?  Are they just a bad idea in terms of operation, reliability, wiring etc?  I guess I just like the initial look of the junction on the original plan; so is the ladder version better or worse?

 

Original layout

 

simplified layout

 

As you can see the simplified ladder layout does actually allow for longer station platforms

 

However, this simplified version has reduced one of the "play options", the double loop same direction running capability (A-A and B- B), so is this the best option?  

 

Flexible running option

 

Yes, I know this is not prototypical, but its what the boys like doing!  And getting two trians to pass over each other on the bridge will be fun.

 

Yes good point Zomboid I will modify the layout to use larger radius points where I can.  I had just used short templates for the initial layout without thinking.  We currently have a mixture of short and medium radius, so I will want to use these rather than buying more.  So perhaps I will use these in the sidings area and try and get medium/large for the station.

 

I have re-drawn the layout with the station raised by 30mm, which now gives a max gradient of 2% in any direction, so a great idea that Unravelled.

[Zomboid]

I don't like the diamond there personally because it just looks like a contrived arrangement. Move the top crossover to the left of the diamond and you'll create something along the lines of a scissors, which is a bit more believable.

And actually your flexible option isn't that outlandish. I'd go with that if it were my train set.

The simplified arrangement is what a real railway company would build, though.

[Nearholmer]

Have you got a copy of C J Freezer's "60 Plans for Small Layouts"?

 

He provides a lot of interesting ideas for 8ft x 4ft.

 

A lot depends on how old the children who will play with it are.

 

My experience (self, and offspring!) is that "whizzing round with wagons filled with zoo animals/pirates/dinosaurs/soldiers" lasts up to about age 5 or 6, then things progress to deliberate crashes (boys) and "journey stories" (girls), lasting up to about age 8 or 9, then either the railway gets forgotten, or an interest in prototypical operation begins to set-in. In the first two phases, it is really important to have all the track within small-arms-reach.

 

By coincidence, I was just looking in a 1949 copy of "Model Railway Constructor", which contains an article by CJF, before he became well known as editor of "Railway Modeller".

 

Said magazine contains an article by a Mr Dove, which gives a plan for a "roundy-roundy", with a branch to a terminus at a higher level, using an 8ft x 6ft plan. In short what, with a bit of tidying-up, to cut the width to 4ft, to fit a standard sheet of plywood, became one of CJF's classic designs. The resemblance is too close for coincidence, and tends to illustrate that we all get inspiration from others.

 

Kevin

[shortliner]

It may be worth a look here if you haven't seen it before - granted they are N scale but will scale up http://www.cke1st.com/m_train2.htm

[sub39h]

I like plan no3, but with the "simplified" amendment made by Jaggzuk. another small amendmend I would make would be to add another set of cross overs so trains can switch from the outer track to the inner track in a clockwise direction as well as an anticlockwise direction 

Edited October 26, 2015 by sub39h

[unravelled]

Definitely plan 3, the flexible running version, in my opinion. It was only the diamond, or rather the two consecutive points on the inner loop which I was trying to avoid in my earlier post.

 

Dave

[Jaggzuk]

So here is an updated plan taking your comments into consideration.

 

The grenn is at 30mm, the blue is a 2% down gradient to the grey which is a zero. The red is a 2% incline up to 70mm, which is max at the over bridge.

 

I have removed the crossover and added a facing ladder, which does provide for great runing flexibility. I have also used medium radius points in the station, but kept the short radius in the goods sidings.

 

 

I think I like the outcome now, it just looks better. Odd really as I originally like the idea of a crossing :-).

 

Another option for the station junction is to move the facing ladder, but this is at expense of the clockwise platform as it just does not fit. So not sure this is really is a better solution.

Edited October 27, 2015 by Jaggzuk

[Jaggzuk]

Have you got a copy of C J Freezer's "60 Plans for Small Layouts"?

 

He provides a lot of interesting ideas for 8ft x 4ft.

 

A lot depends on how old the children who will play with it are.

 

My experience (self, and offspring!) is that "whizzing round with wagons filled with zoo animals/pirates/dinosaurs/soldiers" lasts up to about age 5 or 6, then things progress to deliberate crashes (boys) and "journey stories" (girls), lasting up to about age 8 or 9, then either the railway gets forgotten, or an interest in prototypical operation begins to set-in. In the first two phases, it is really important to have all the track within small-arms-reach.

 

Kevin

 

I have seen/had CJF book and very useful too, lost my copy a long time ago.  It is amazing how some things in out hobby are timeless.

 

As for kids playing with what I/we build, well the 5 year old is now a dab hand with coupling and tension hooks.  He is Ok with my NCE Powercab and single digit loco IDs, but this helped quite a bit http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/blog/469/entry-15952-entering-the-world-of-dcc/ with his learning the buttons.

 

Our current main stay of fun is, as you rightly observed Kevin, loading as many wagons with 'stuff' and creating long trains.  He fortunately knows the difference between his trains and Daddies 'expensive/delicate' ones.  But I can hardly say no to his regular request for outings for most of my stock as I get to play with them too.  One thing he is VERY good at is remembering everything I have and which draw it is in; a child's memory is so uncluttered :-)

 

We are blessed with the eldest being more into fine detail and being gentle, than the crash bash, but as for No2, well he's just normal and in to all things!!  But, at 2 and a half, he can now push is own (life expired) trains up and down the track with out too many derailments

 

As for the long term future, well not too worried, they both seem pretty mad on trains, as most little boys are.  Plus, as I work on the railways, there is no getting away from the real thing!!  So if the 8x4 does fall by the wayside when teens hit, then Daddies 12x13 North Marsh Road will come in to being:. http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/blog/469-north-marsh-road-eastern-region-br-blue-oo/ something a bit like this http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/gallery/image/51197-north-marsh-road-plan-06-06-13/(that was about v3 and now I am on to v8)

 

At the end of the day, at the moment, it all about play, creativity and fun with quite a bit learning as we go.

Edited October 27, 2015 by Jaggzuk

[DCB]

Personally I would just put a lot of set track curves straights and points on an 8X4 board and let them play.  I should have done that with my son when he was young but instead I started a three level 76" X 54" layout on the spare bed which has never been finished.  It did however feature double track and a spiral and 19" and 21" curves opened out from 2nd Radius, see pic.

 

We did however have great fun with a double track plus loop plus turntable 5'X3' approx layout on the living room table.

 

If you must use the planned configuration why not squeeze down the top trackwork and extend the bottom to allow a second platform as per my messy alteration to your drawing.

[jon_1066]

What trains are you planning on running on your inner line?  Much modern rolling stock won't like R1s.

 

The short headshunt limits the usability of the sidings.   It will be frustrating getting trains in and out of there.

 

The link between A and B makes the whole thing one long loop in effect so both boys would be operating on the same piece of track therefore there is no real advantage in allowing simultaneous movements through that point work.  This would save you a couple of points and let you have a longer platform.

[Jaggzuk]

What trains are you planning on running on your inner line?  Much modern rolling stock won't like R1s.

 

The short headshunt limits the usability of the sidings.   It will be frustrating getting trains in and out of there.

 

The link between A and B makes the whole thing one long loop in effect so both boys would be operating on the same piece of track therefore there is no real advantage in allowing simultaneous movements through that point work.  This would save you a couple of points and let you have a longer platform.

Modern stock, jon_1066, so the 1st radius will be an issue as you rightly say. So I am fast going backwards here!

 

Can you expand on why the headshunt will be frustrating? Is it because it is not longer than the sidings themselves? I guess i had not really thought about this.

 

Looking back at that plan i think my A and B are wrong on the left hand side, I will up date that image.

[jon_1066]

Re the headshunt.  You would normally have the sidings on a trailing point form the main line so you can back wagons or coaches into them.  If you imagine a train trying to put coaches or wagons into your sidings it has to pull into the headshunt first.  This will be frustrating on two levels:

1. The length of the loco will reduce the maximum length of rolling stock you can move in any single movement.

2. If shunting a train and sorting the wagons you won't be able to cut wagons out of the middle of a longer train.

 

If I understand the pointwork and your intentions correctly you are labelled up OK it is just what the trains will be doing that is the problem.  Simultaneous movements over the points turns the layout into a single long loop.  If you follow a train on the blue inner line it swaps to the red middle line then swaps to the blue outer line which returns it to the blue inner line - ie there is no longer two separate loops.

[DCB]

You could try something like this which would let 2 trains circulate  or one do a figure of 8 while another shunted if it is DCC

Edited October 29, 2015 by DavidCBroad

[jon_1066]

Something like this would get rid of your R1s

 

 

It basically follows a very similar arrangement of movements.  It has two loops joined by a section of track.  I have included a passing place to allow trains to swap loops.  The middle line rises as the outer and inner lines fall.

 

[Zomboid]

I was going to wade in with something similar to that, but yours is better than my idea...

[rockershovel]

Google "Lionel 8 by 4" for more folded loops than you can shake a stick at!

 

Some ideas keep recurring because they are the optimum solution for a given set of parameters, and the 8x4 or 6x4 roundy-round is one if them!

[Jaggzuk]

Jon_1066 that is a fantastic plan! Not sure how you did it, but you have managed to capture the essence of my original idea and turn it into a great plan that works, and works very well. Thank you.

 

I think it is the great use of curves that make it work so well. You even managed to get in a Level Crossing, which was another stipulation from the boys. And with a bridge behind it, it looks like Northallerton, a favourite location for us.

 

I was showing this plan to a friend last night and he noted the clever inclusion of the two goods yards, as this would mean each of my boys could have his own yard to shunt at.

 

I guess the island platform is quite a powerful tool to economise on space, but still allow for realistic junction running. Does remind me a bit of Hellifield station?

 

Is it time to build? One has to work fast to keep kids on board, after all they are not arm chair modelers ;-)

[Jaggzuk]

Ok, so not going to think too much more on this one, as the plan fits, I got a bit distracted at my local model shop when out today.  

 

 

Having already bought some more track and points last weekend at the Hartlepool MR Show (which was a very good show) I have now bought some more bits for all the gradients on the new layout: Woodland Scenics Subterrain 2% Inclines & Risers, Metcalfe retaining wall kit and an old Tri-ang R78 plate girder bridge.

 

I have never used Woodland Scenics polystyrene stuff before, but it looks like it will really help with getting all the gradients set up quickly.

 

I am really pleased in finding the second hand plate girder bridge, yes I know it is very "toy" like, but there is something about it, it just looks the part and similar to most skewed intersection girder bridge I have seen out on the real railway; all big and strong looking. Plus it is very robust so will stand up to abuse on a kids layout!

 

Before it got washed

 

All nice and clean now

 

This was the 3D view of the intersection bridge from the old plan

 

So next phase it to plan the big railway "blockage" and the deconstruction of the current layout, beefing up of the current baseboard and print out the track plan.  Will need to get a few more points as I intend to use Jon's plan and by the looks of it I will need a few more R2 Setrack points.

 

 

 

[Drummond 700]

I must add - do you worry over the fact there is not 'really' a scenic area? Of course it is not my layout, and you and your sons have the right of way, but do they (or will they develop) an interest in scenic modelling?  

[Removed a/c]

Looks good, shall follow along with interest. I too and currently working on an 8x4 layout but just for my enjoyment. 

[Jaggzuk]

I must add - do you worry over the fact there is not 'really' a scenic area? Of course it is not my layout, and you and your sons have the right of way, but do they (or will they develop) an interest in scenic modelling?

 

Scenery and scenic areas is an interesting observation. I feel the layout designed by Jon gives a very good operational perspective and I am currently playing with ideas for what building and basic scenery can be developed over time. For now the key is to get all the task down to keep the trains running, scenery will develop over time, I hope.

 

As for the future interest in modelling of the boys, who knows! All I know now is the eldest just loves coupling up trains in to long formations and playing with loads. For example after our trip to the Hartlepool show he was really taken with a steelworks based layout, such that today we made lots of load for some BDA bogie bolster wagons; takeout drink straws became pipe loads, various balsa wood section became blooms and flat plate and toy foam floor shapes got cut up and sprayed silver to became aluminium ingots.

[Jaggzuk]

Well I think I am getting there with this plan; in the main thanks to Jon for is plan idea.

 

I have now added some curved points at each end of the station to try and get a bit of a flow to the approaches.  Yes I know that Setracks points are tight, but I have done a bit of a test and all of our stock traversed a sequence of points OK.

 

I think the re-build will be broken down in to two phases, the loops and then the sidings.  In the main to get the layout up and running as soon as is possible, once the big blockage starts.

 

Comments welcome on the revised plan.

 

Green will be at approx 40mm above GL

Yellow is down to Blue @ GL

Red is up to high level

 

 

 

 

 

 

Paul