Jump to content
 

Projected Dublo 3 Rail Layout


Wolseley
 Share

Recommended Posts

Some time in the next few months I hope to be able to commence building a layout.  The most likely size is 8’x4’, although I will need to have it split into two (or maybe three) boards so it can be put away when the space is needed for other purposes.  It will be a double oval in the style of 1950s layouts, with scenery being rather basic.  It will be designed more as a way to display the trains and watch them going around, rather than being realistically operated down to the last detail.  Locomotives and rolling stock will, with a few exceptions, be Hornby Dublo 3 rail.  Track, buildings and signals will also be Dublo.

 

I suppose you could say that it will be a cross between a museum display and a place to watch trains go around.  Something to amuse myself and my grandson (or, in a few months time, grandsons).

 

I have been using SCARM, which has me a little bit concerned, as everything fits together perfectly this time, and every time up to now I have found that, as soon as you put in a diamond crossing, nothing lines up properly, even though it does when you put the actual bits of track together (according to SCARM about half of the layouts in the Hornby Dublo track plan book shouldn’t work).  I guess I’ll find out when I try it for real.

 

This is my latest draft which, by now, should be getting close to the final design.  It should allow me to run two trains and have another three or four sitting in sidings while awaiting their turn, plus the opportunity to make some relatively simple shunting movements, which was what I was aiming for.  In case anyone is wondering, the station platform without the ramps is where the Goods Shed is going.

 

I was wondering if anyone who has done something similar might be willing to suggest some improvements, or point out any obvious mistakes.

 

Thank you.

 

 

post-30099-0-24785300-1496142234_thumb.jpg
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

Always nice seeing HD layouts. Only thing I would say is your trains have no where to go. On leaving the station , they can just go round in circles, but there is no station destination on the main circuit, so where do your trains go? I'd be inclined to have a station on the main circuit . But whatever, have good fun with it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Like many layouts suggested for Dublo, it includes a loop which is actually fairly useless, as it is the wrong way round to reverse trains. Unfortunately it requires a lot more space and/or a second level to correct. I would give the goods sidings a bit more space moving them slightly to the right away from the loco facilities, even at the expense of making them a tad shorter. Ideally these require a water tower but Dublo never made one. I used an Airfix/Dapol kit for mine, but (heretical) alternatives were made by Tri-ang and Trix (the latter is a rare item). The Dublo engine shed is quite rare and expensive too. My locos lived in the open for this reason. An Airfix/Dapol two road shed is a long term project....

 

The TPO apparatus needs access, if it is actually to be used for mailbags. The diamond crossing is a PITA as there are left and right handed versions to match the points. I find you always need the other one.....

 

SCARM doesn't allow for slight track misalignment, which can 'make it fit', when really it shouldn't. I have a feeling the short rail at the bottom right of the inner circuit between the two points should actually go inside the loop, otherwise they are all expensive luxuries (the rail commands a premium price), but there is sufficient track to take up the slack anyway.   :secret:  I have cut up track to make special units in the past. A  quick touch with a soldering iron is necessary to not damage the printed base. Making the join in or near the edge of a sleeper will make it almost invisible.

 

Anyway have fun with the layout. One of the beauties of Dublo is that you can always easily rip it up and relay it.

 

Note the Dublo goods shed, like all the plastic buildings, is intended for 2 rail track and is a fraction low for 3 rail.  A sheet of hardboard or similar will make up the difference or just ignore it. Lots of space for Dublo Dinky lorries and 29 series buses and coaches.... (cheap enough as restorables!)

Edited by Il Grifone
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

From the description of the layout, it was intended to be a watch the trains go around type layout along with a few necessities needed for this operation; station, sidings, etc.  My Dublo days ended years ago but now I have an O gauge tinplate layout that follows the same need and description as this one; somewhere to watch the trains.  This one does so admirably in the space allocated and while it could be extended for more realistic operation, in its current state it gives a lot of enjoyment.  I've always wondered about the long sidings along the edge in a lot of Dublo layouts, especially far from existing stations, etc.  It would seem the space could be put to better use but they are invariably prevalent..  I suppose they could be considered refuge sidings for parking trains..  Also, T/Ts are nice but they take up a lot of room, IMO better to have a couple of sidings with an engine shed and use the other space for goods or carriage sidings and perhaps doing away with one main station building.  On the other hand , do exactly what you want to do and enjoy it!

 

Brian.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Brings back memories of a 6' x 4' layout I had on a board when I was young. Absolutely perfect for a vintage 3 rail retro layout, just need to sort out the electrics for the reversing loop.

 

But surely not needing to do so is one of the joys of 3-rail?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for your comments.

 

I know that the trains will not be going anywhere other than around in circles and then maybe back to the station they came from.  My aim is mainly to see trains in motion but, yes, it would make more sense to have somewhere for them to stop at and it would probably make it more interesting to operate.  Maybe I will see if I can work in another station on the main circuit.  I can probably do that and get away with only adding about 6” to the width.

 
As to the diamond crossings and short rails, that’s not a problem, as I have one left and one right hand diamond crossings, and somehow I managed to end up with about 15 short rails.  The only track I am likely to need would be four or five extra points, which shouldn’t be too hard to get hold of.
 
The position of the TPO is, I admit, the one thing I thought I might have got wrong (the controls will be in the bottom right hand corner), although it’s not the sort of thing you would use that often.  That said though, my grandson wants to see it operate every time a train goes around - I think he just likes the noise it makes.  The siding at the foot of the plan could be moved away from the main track a bit (adding two or three inches to the width) to allow the TPO to be closer to the operator.  I’m undecided on that right now.  It might also depend on whether or not I put another station in, as mentioned above.  Or I could add a quarter or half rail length to the tracks and position it between the points that lead to the goods shed and to the turntable.
 
The two long sidings were intended as refuge sidings for parking trains - a way of having more trains on the board which, in turn, should make it easier to change the trains around while at the same time keeping handling to a minimum.
 
The goods shed being a bit lower than it should be doesn’t really bother me.  If it were a passenger platform I would put some packing under it but a goods shed?  I’ll just use it as is.
 
The reversing loop is probably not essential and was included more as a statement to those who have never seen 3 rail in action that this can be done quite easily in 3 rail rather than because it is necessary for the operation of the layout, although it is handy for turning the Canadian Pacific loco as, with the additional length of the cowcatcher, it fouls the locking lever of the turntable.  And the turntable is only there because I wanted one (plus it would be a shame to have one and not use it).
 
in spite of having almost everything (bar one 3 rail conversion of a 1980s Hornby DMU and a three rail Flying Scotsman, which I haven’t got around to doing yet) I am going to use modern productions of 1950s road vehicles.  I had originally planned using Dinky and Matchbox toys and had purchased a very playworn Dinky double decker bus to repaint but, as soon as my grandson saw it, he decided it was his and it has become his favourite toy.  I do have a couple of EFE buses that wouldn’t look out of place, so I thought I might use them instead.  Then I saw a selection of Oxford Diecast cars in a shop and, after seeing that one was a dark green Jowett Javelin, I bought it for the layout.  In case you’re wondering, the first car I drove was a dark green Jowett Javelin although it wasn’t on a public road, as I wasn’t old enough to have a licence at the time.  Anyhow, I digress…..
 
And, speaking of my grandson, with the selection of locomotives I now have, he has two definite favourites: the Trix Warship, and Sir Nigel Gresley, with the Co-Bo coming in third.
Edited by Wolseley
Link to post
Share on other sites

I suspect the loops were put in for the purpose of reversing locomotives, as the turntable was a relatively late (and expensive) addition to the range. There was a rather neat triangle in an early post-war Meccano Magazine with the same function.

 

A Dinky bus as a favourite toy shows how they got it right all those years ago....

 

Unfortunately very few of the Dinky range are suitable for 00 - the Dublo series and the 29 series buses and coaches (mainly the single and double deck buses, as the coaches are rather esoteric rare prototypes). The forward control lorry is 1:72 scale so will do at a push, but it is rather ridiculously long (and usually bright orange!), as is the Dublo Dinky Bedford flat lorry The latter is designed to take the Dublo containers, themselves well over length. Why they redesigned the underframe for the low sided wagons I can't imagine; Tri-ang didn't with theirs. The Austin Sevens are often shown in Meccano Magazine articles, but are really around S scale. I can remember buying quite a few of these (1/3d IIRC), but the wheels would come off easily and get lost even more easily.

 

Modern ranges EFE, Oxford etc. are fine for scale (I allow these on the grounds they are collectibles and OK for period...)

 

Matchbox provide many suitable vehicles, but they are 'box scale' and need careful selection. Most of the cars are within acceptable limits though. There are also a few Morestone/Budgie vehicles as well (a rather nice Leyland livestock vehicle for example (again orange, though there is a coal lorry in green using the same chassis).

 

Regrettably we have to compete with the diecast vehicle collectors for our accessories. They seem to have very deep pockets.... 

Edited by Il Grifone
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

Like many layouts suggested for Dublo, it includes a loop which is actually fairly useless, as it is the wrong way round to reverse trains.

Agreed about he reverse loop. It would make more sense if was accessible from the outside track, but that would require a significant change to the track plan. As it stands, a train having arrived, would need to back up, half way around the layout, then go forward, over the crossover and around the inside track & finally through the reverse loop. Going the other way, would need a similar amount of shuffling.

 

At least the wiring is simpler for a 3 rail layout, than its equivalent 2 rail layout.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Instead of a terminus I would suggest a through station on one long side. Eliminate the two dead end sidings on each long side outside the oval, and instead use the width to create two loops off the through lines so that the two platforms can have running lines on both faces.

 

That clears space inside the circuit for more carriage sidings/goods yard roads, possibly off the return loop. Let's face it, you will rapidly acquire more and more stock...

Link to post
Share on other sites

omis.

 

Let's face it, you will rapidly acquire more and more stock...

 

No chance at all....   :jester: 

 

(SWMBO says I have too many trains! We all know that is an impossibility. I won't tell her how many I actually have however....)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Instead of a terminus I would suggest a through station on one long side. Eliminate the two dead end sidings on each long side outside the oval, and instead use the width to create two loops off the through lines so that the two platforms can have running lines on both faces.

 

That clears space inside the circuit for more carriage sidings/goods yard roads, possibly off the return loop. Let's face it, you will rapidly acquire more and more stock...

 

 

I did come up with a plan like that, but rejected it because it didn't look right.  I might revisit it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

Sounds good whatever plan you go with, Wolseley. How about posting some pics on progress? As others have pointed out it's all about having fun. I quite often think the more serious model railways become, more detail, the correct stock etc, the less fun it actually is. At model railway exhibitions I can still spend time appreciating the site and sound of an H-D layout .good fun!

Link to post
Share on other sites

How about posting some pics on progress? 

 

 

I will but, as I don't work very quickly on such things, it might be a couple of months or more before you hear anything.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Instead of a terminus I would suggest a through station on one long side. Eliminate the two dead end sidings on each long side outside the oval, and instead use the width to create two loops off the through lines so that the two platforms can have running lines on both faces.

 

That clears space inside the circuit for more carriage sidings/goods yard roads, possibly off the return loop. Let's face it, you will rapidly acquire more and more stock...

 

 

I did come up with a plan like that, but rejected it because it didn't look right.  I might revisit it.

 

 

I have been going over the plans I came up with that had a through station, but they either still don't look right, or the board will be too wide.  I don't want it to be less than 8 feet long, as that would not allow anything other than very short trains and, although I have approval to build something, I don't want to push my luck by coming up with something too big.  So 8'x4' (or 4'6") it is.

Link to post
Share on other sites

This example, from a post by Dublodad in another thread, looks rather like what I'm thinking of.  I might try doing a few variations on it:

 

http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/122086-double-track-operation-in-dublo-3-rail/page-2


SCARM plan of the 8 x 4 loose laid layout we ran at Milton Court Care Home - Milton Keynes, yesterday, 1st June. This is a simplified plan of a design of another group member. The plan is not geometrically correct, and also needed "Ad Libbing" during assembly. A bucket load of straight short rails are a blessing at times like this!!!!

 

Photos and a video are available on the "Hornby Dublo Trains - HRCA" Facebook page. This is a closed group, but, if you are interested in Dublo, I would recommend that you register.

 

Terryattachicon.gif SCARM - Milton Court Version 2.pdf

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Do Dublo layouts have names; I thought that was a scale enthusiasts thing! I call my Hornby O gauge layout the Layout!

 

Brian.

 

 

Well, the through station and the signal box had provision for names, and Hornby did have a selection of names from all four regions.  A name would not be essential, but the through station and the signal box would look incomplete without one.

 

My through station already has two badly cut out stickers proclaiming it to be Crawford, but I have to say that I'm not really that taken with the selection of Dublo names, so I'll have to come up with something else.  Initially I thought that Binns Road might look good, but it seems that quite a few others have had the same idea, including one that was shown at several exhibitions in Australia (although not in New South Wales).  I might recycle a name I have used before, the two possibilities being Maybank, an LMS ex-Caledonian terminus, the plan of which was heavily influenced - but not as good as - Dave Howsam's Porthleven (the name was taken from the house my father grew up in - his bedroom window looked out over a view of the yards of Brechin station - but I digress) and Strathmore, another LMS ex-Caledonian layout, which never got much beyond the planning, building locomotives, rolling stock and station buildings stage - it was to have been loosely based on Stanley Junction.  Then again, I might pick something different altogether - I have plenty of time to think it over.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

Do Dublo layouts have names; I thought that was a scale enthusiasts thing! I call my Hornby O gauge layout the Layout!

 

Brian.

Aren't they usually called Kings Cross or Paddington?

 

 

(I'll depart quietly in the melee.)

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

'Everton' is the one I remember. I'll have to look up the others.

 

Inferior makes had other names. Tri-ang liked 'Margate' for some reason.   :scratchhead:

 

EDIT

Memory! (corrupted by football?).

 

Overton, Crawford, Lichfield, Newark, Westbury

Edited by Il Grifone
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

 

This example, from a post by Dublodad in another thread, looks rather like what I'm thinking of.  I might try doing a few variations on it:

 

http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/122086-double-track-operation-in-dublo-3-rail/page-2

 

 

 

 

Well, I tried reworking this plan into something I might use, but the end result each time was something that looked either messy or overcrowded, or both - and more often than not wider than I had planned on.  I also came up with a number of plans where the trains had a second station to go to but, cramming another station into an already small space looked a bit ridiculous.  I did come up with a couple of plans that would have had more carriage sidings and goods yards, but they looked like a marshalling yard enclosed by an oval of track with a platform on the outside.

 

Whatever I plan, I keep coming back to the one I posted at the beginning of this thread.  There are perfectly valid arguments against the inclusion of reverse loops and turntables but, to my mind, they have the potential to add more interest than three or four sidings.  As for the TPO apparatus, I would only be operating it when there was someone else with me and, in any case I can't see it being in operation for an extended period, so I don't think having it on the other side of the board would matter that much.  I did try finding another spot for it, but it didn't fit easily anywhere else.  Added to which, I don't really want to have it right next to the edge of the boards, where it might get damaged.  I was going to set up a station forecourt with a bus and other vehicles parked in it in the vacant area next to the station building, and the TPO could be worked in quite well with that.

 

The plan was based on one of the Dublo plans, seen below:

 

post-30099-0-36224800-1498305630.jpg

 

Here is my latest reworking of it:

 

post-30099-0-31918000-1498305892_thumb.jpg

 

The siding that terminates at the bottom left hand corner of the illustration was put there so that I could connect a fiddle yard (or, if I can get my head around how to make one, a traverser) to the layout at a later date.  I have also tried to keep points away from the centre line of the board, as I think I will end up using two 4'x4' boards (either hinged or to be joined together) rather than one 8'x4' board.  The tunnel at the side is just something I put in to see what it looked like - I probably won't end up doing it (it is getting perilously close to putting scenery on a Dublo layout, isn't it?)

 

And a couple of 3D SCARM renditions of it:

 

post-30099-0-30601800-1498306363_thumb.jpg

 

post-30099-0-19991800-1498306395_thumb.jpg

 

I did an inventory of my track last night and found that I will need to get three or four more electrically operated right hand points, but everything else I need I already have.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...