Turning, Tail-chasing Test-Track Thoughts?

[Lacathedrale]

The main thrust of my work presently falls onto an Iain Rice-style 2mmFS cameo layout; something I'm hoping to finish to a high standard and maybe even exhibit, and will live in my garden studio on a shelf.

 

On the other hand, would like somewhere my locos can stretch their legs, would function quite well as a test track, could go together relatively easily and sit permanently in the garage or loft without hurting anything.  I would quite like to do a more rural/countryside layout in an impressionistic style, where the railway slices through the landscape; a viaduct or cutting, charging out of a tunnel or across a river. Think "Stoke Summit" - mostly era/locale independent initially.

• Scale: 2mm
• Scope: Countryside, bridge/embankment or tunnel/cutting.
• Inspiration: Stoke Summit, 
• Minimum radius 18"
• Size: Either 9' x 9' (studio), 12' x 16' (garage) or 18' x 7' (loft)

My first thought was to discount the loft, and go with a 7'6" diameter doughnut-shaped layout in four 90 degree modules that would fit into an 8' x 8' space. A ruling radius of 45" in 2mm/ft would allow me to run anything with ease, and the nature of the visualisation would give a natural progression between scenic sections without the need for a discrete fiddle yard (but the provisioning of one wouldn't be a problem, even at a later stage - given the standard quarter-doughnut module.) It would give a ~20' linear run, so even if half was considered staging it does win out on a long thin layout of my max length. Backscenes bolt-on/removable and sceniced on both sides so the layout can be operated from inside the well looking out, as well as looking in.

 

Has anyone tried this? It seems like a very efficient way of utilising layout space in finescale, just because dogbone reversing loops would end up being huge and otherwise on a circuit fiddle yards behind will necessitate very wide boards.

 

Honestly I'm less fussed about the specifics of the design as it is a ways off, but I'd like to hear from anyone who has done something similar (or seen any failures). The only one that springs to mind was an LBSC/SECR "Quarry Lines" layout on this parish, but was 4mm and slightly larger.

Edited January 17, 2018 by Lacathedrale

[Lacathedrale]

So this is broadly what I was thinking, just for illustration purposes (please ignore the "trackplan" such as it is)

 

 

Quite how I would make big, circular baseboards with lots of height variation I'm not yet sure - but the principle appears sound. With an 18"  baseboard depth there would be room for an office chair, etc. in the operating well so the layout height could remain low (to avoid it becoming unwieldy). Funnily enough Rice and some CJ Freezer designs have a very similar approach, but 'fill out' one of the corners with a depot/engine shed/terminus station. 

 

After some thought (and more perusal of aforementioned plans) it seems I could be more efficient with my space if I picked a discrete location to place the layout and fully expand the boards to that area; with cutaways for access to different spaces in the room/etc. and realistically an 8' circumference circle in my garage/loft can't really be considered 'permanent'.  Despite that, the relatively wide minimum radius means that any oblong plan ends up more than 3' deep and with ~2' of hidden turnback loops on either end. What appears as a fairly odd design actually seems to make sense. 

 

If I can squeeze the depth of the staging module down to 6" or so (for an overall width at that cross section of ~7') then it would fit in my loft too without modification.

 

 

Any thoughts?

Edited January 16, 2018 by Lacathedrale

[Joseph_Pestell]

There is that 2mm layout of Woodhead which follows this sort of scheme.

[Harlequin]

Hi Will, (Bill? William?)

 

Why circular baseboards? You could have a reasonably curvacious track plan on rectilinear boards and save yourself a whole heap of trouble!

 

BTW: You could think about modular boards that go together in different combinations for different spaces, like earlier suggestions for Caterham/Purley, and perhaps connect in Godstone Road.

 

Aside: What software are you using? (I ask because of the horrible "jaggies" along the edges.)

[Gordon A]

It is a good idea to have a circular layout where you can see your locos and stock stretch their legs.

 

Depending on your carpentry skills a circular layout can be a pig to build so I would ring some one like Tim Horn ( http://www.timhorn.co.uk/ ) to see if a baseboard kit would be a practical route.

 

Gordon A

[Lacathedrale]

Hi Phil,

 

It looks like another signature change is required, Ha! 

 

With regard to circular baseboards, it just seems like four identically sized and shaped boards with an automatic provision for wide radius, curved backscene and an operating well would make sense. Maybe I'm cover-complicating things! As you can see from the timestamp the plan did go up late last night after a few ales and cheese crackers. Non-visible return curves are going to eat so much space on an oblong layout that I was quite unsure. I would be interested to see your thoughts given the stellar approach on the Caterham branch layout. 

 

The only real requirement for the logistics is that the staging is either directly accessible (i.e. operating from the inside with the visible layout in front and the staging behind) or very easily accessible (i.e. removable backscene boards) in order that it COULD potentially go into the attic. I'm still not convinced that's a great choice, but it's totally empty at the moment I would hate to build a layout that could only go up in the garage, and then have to tear it down if it takes up too much space for what it's worth.

 

Cheers,

[Joseph_Pestell]

If building a circular layout, I think just four boards would be a bit awkward. 6 or 8 would be better.

 

Tim Horn does indeed have suitable kits but nor would it be that difficult to build for one self with the right techniques and tools.

[Lacathedrale]

Thinking about it, maybe if the geometry could work, something like this:

 

 

Layout stays the same in both permutations, but the 180' turns are oriented behind the operator in a "big" config which gives space for an operating well, or behind the layout in a "compact" configuration. The fiddle yard retains the orientation however, so when compact saves the 8-12" width, or when "big" doesn't encroach too much onto the operating well.

 

Obviously, using MS paint isn't great for showing this.

 

Maybe I'm just making life difficult for myself and I should accept one path or another...

[andi4x4]

I have been working on something similar in design myself, although not with the intention of scenery.

 

Have a look at my ideas here http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/118704-an-un-named-layout-with-a-nod-to-cj-freezer/

 

The whole ethos of my design was that I can connect any board to any other board, in any orientation - just like pieces of standard set-track - very similar idea to that which Bill Williamson/Lacathedrale has suggested above.

[Harlequin]

Hi Bill,

 

Here's a possible modular setup:

 

The cream modules (1220*450) and green modules (610*450) can be used in either inside or outside config.

Blue corner modules allow you to connect everything in inside config.

The pink modules allow you to connect in outside config (exhibition???).

The green modules are only needed to make the smallest possible inside config work (top left) and could be ignored.

 

Min radius 450mm (metric 18in).

 

All modules can be scenic if you want or some non-scenic just to connect the scenic modules into a circuit for playing.

 

Obviously what I've shown is just the ruthlessly logical basic design and in reality you'd make the lines a bit more curvy, fiddle with the backscene curves, make some boards require joins to specific other boards so that scenery continues, etc. etc...

 

The bottom left config is closest to your doughnut and is 8ft square with a 5ft operating well.

 

Edit: Did you really mean ruling radius 45inches above? Or 45cms?

 

Here's a 45in radius circle (magenta) superimposed on a set of boards:

 

It fits nicely but of course those boards will now only fit together that way.

 

Edited January 17, 2018 by Harlequin

[Lacathedrale]

Hi Andi,

 

I'm reading that now !

 

Hi Phil,

 

The ruling radius of 45" was done on the assumption that a circular baseboard was desirable and achievable. It would appear that aside from paying Tim Horn (which I'd rather spend on other things), my lack of carpentry skills may preclude the construction of such a layout regardless of how practical it is. The mind is willing, but the body is weak!  Regardless, your solution of modular boards is a lot more elegant, especially with the baseboards reversing (rather than having to model both sides of every scene).  The inspiration for this was a tunnel picture here  http://www.warwickshirerailways.com/lner/catesbytunnel/gcct4.jpg

 

Imagine something like this:

• Long Board A: Lefthand tunnel mouth
• Long Board B: Embankment/halt station
• Long Board X: Left hand ladder of fiddle yard (less wide)
• Long Board Y: Right hand ladder of fiddle yard (less wide)
• Curve 1: Right-hand 180 degree outside curve, viaduct
• Curve 2: Left-hand 180 degree outside curve, unscenicked
• Curve 10, 11: 90 degree curve, unscenicked
• Curve 12, 13: 90 degree curve, single cameo (inoperable junction, bridge, etc.) 

From this, one has three distinct arrangements: inside, outside and linear:

• Inside: One can arrange the tunnel, embankment and scenic curve into a long sweeping scene around 15' long: starting Clockwise from top in the 'outside' plan one could have A, B, 1, Y, X, 2. This would suit the garage or an exhibition.
• Outside: Alternatively, one could arrange the layout as A, 12, B, 13, Y, 10, X, 11. This would essentially be an out and back variation since only the outside fiddle yard roads could running through (i.e. maintain minimum radius while connecting through Curve 10, 11's) This would fit into the garden shed quite easily.
• Linear: Lastly, one could set up the layout in a totally linear fashion: X, A, B, (slot-in backscene), Y. This would be perfect in the loft.

I would foresee it in multiple stages of construction and operations:

1. Initial build: Boards A and X (where X could be two strips of aluminium angle instead of a 'real' fiddle yard.), and Curves 1 and 2. 
2. Choice:
   1. If the garage or loft is well suited, leave it as is.
   2. If it's more suited to the shed and operated from a well, replace curves 1, 2 with curves 10, 11, 12 and 13 for an 'inside' layout.
3. Lengthwise Expansion: Boards B and Y
4. Future Expansion: Depending on how the layout itself goes, construct additional long boards to extend the layout longitudinally.

Rather than everything being able to connect to everything else (although this would technically be feasible), one is simply adding or removing the relevant curved section so the layout plan fits three possible areas. As such there wouldn't always need to be a return to 0,0 between long scenic boards. For ease, I think keeping the curves scenically contiguous but without track 'bleed over' would make the process easier to mentally cope with, or if so then building a 'new' curved section that is dedicated for a particular long board (i.e. station long board has sidings that bleed over into a dedicated curved section that holds an engine shed, and this is laid out as a discrete unit)

 

 

I could stop at any point during the process too, with Stage 1 being relatively small (roughly 5' x 8' with an operating well in the middle) and Stage 4 being 'club layout' sized. As long as I keep the multiples broadly the same (or at least summing to 4', 8', 12', etc.) then there is no limit to introducing elements.

 

The only option which would not be exhibit-able (I guess?) would be Stage 2.2 - but by that point I would have already built the curves for Stage  2.1, which could be substituted when it was 'on the road', and if I were to Proceed to Stage 3 then the layout could operate linearly without an issue.

 

 

Does that make sense?

Edited January 17, 2018 by Lacathedrale

[Lacathedrale]

Andi, how funny - the picture of the tunnel I linked above is at Catesby, on the Great Central Railway's London extension as per Posts #3-4 in your thread  

[Harlequin]

 

Hi Phil,

 

[snip]

 

Does that make sense?

 

 

Erm, yes... I think so... 

[DCB]

The original circle sounds good, especially if you have some staging as an inner circle inside the backscene with viewing from the outside.  Would need either gradients or a flat crossing but could be good.  Post 8 is like my loft layout in many respects except I run clockwise only round the top loop and have connecting curves so trains can run clockwise round the top loop and either way round the bottom loop. 20 years on it is still not even part finished!  Good as a test track though.

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

....On the other hand, would like somewhere my locos can stretch their legs, would function quite well as a test track...

 Just considering these elements, your locos and stock whether being enjoyed running or under test would be doing so going around curves one way only under the schemes proposed (and on curved track alone if the circular plan emerged as the chosen solution.) I make the assumption in writing this, that really you don't want to be handling the models over much, by the necessity of turning and  re-railing to have them on curvature of the other hand.

 

Better if possible to devise a scheme which enables travel around curves both to the left and the right, so that mechanisms in particular are fully exercised, and especially so when under test. There is mention of the 'dogbone' concept, which by provision of crossovers and the requisite polarity switching achieves this, but there are alternatives such as figure of eight that are worth consideration.

[Lacathedrale]

HI David, 

Thank you for the kind words, I'm just not sure if I can build it. Certainly a 45" continuous radius is much more generous than the 18" in the 'modular' plan (infact, it seems A1 Tornado can just about manage 4.5 chain curves which equates to roughly 2' radius - so the modular plan may have to expand anyway to meet that requirement). Phil's 'magenta' circular path across the square boards could be achieved in the visual section A-12-B-13 (shown below) but would preclude changing the arrangement. If I were less fussed about changing things that would seem pretty nice (Certainly nicer than the 18" 90 degree turns I'm currently budgeting for) and could potentially support a stacked figure of eight (or similar).

 

23theletterbetweenB&D,

That is a good shout, when I was considering dogbones I realised that it was almost pointless - with a ~18" minimum radius that gives a 3' diameter and with some space on each side more like 3'6", and another 18" to return the curve back parallel to the entry point - 4-5' of 'wasted' space. It could possibly be included in the 'linear' layout proposed below. Or, as David has suggested, be more concrete in which arrangement to adhere to and use the inside of the layout as staging, possibly with a gradient down. I'm not wholly adverse to turning trains however, - I have imagined that one of the FY roads will be a cassette track either way.

 

Here is a quick mock up of Phil's modular concept with the attributions and re-use I have described my previous post:

 

 

Something that does jump out at me from the above visualisation however, is that the Garage/Exhibition Layout option really is only suited to an Exhibition. Were I to operate from home in the Garage, I would want to see the main part of the layout, and thus be operating around boards 1 or B, i.e. significantly far away from the staging area. This would limit any operation to an automatic running of through trains. Operating the layout certainly wasn't a primary concern but to deliberately cut myself off from it seems a little rash particularly when it would require standing in the garage doing little else. I don't have any idea if exhibiting is any fun at all, having never tried it - so it does seem a little presumptuous to organise a layout around that option.

 

I'm sure there's something in there, I'll keep sketching. 

Edited January 18, 2018 by Lacathedrale

[justin1985]

Take a look at Tony Simm's "Brafferton" for something quite similar to your original concept": 

 

I think there is\was quite a bit about it somewhere on RMWeb too. Certainly seemed a very successful design when I saw it running at exhibitions.

 

If I'm not mistaken, it was sold, and now resides with another Copenhagen Fields regular who lives in Beckenham, so might even be possible to arrange a visit!

 

Justin

[Harlequin]

For Garage operation you want to be able to connect X and Y the "right way up".

 

There are two ways to do that: Either make the track joins central to the board ends so that they can be connected either way around or, probably better, since boards 1 and 2 are only for garage mode just make them feed into boards X and Y the "right way up".

 

Does that make sense?

[Lacathedrale]

Righto, so mixing together David's suggestion of a wider radius on visible sections and erring on the side of caution when it comes to exhibiting (i.e. not designing with that in mind before I've even finished my cameo exhibit layout) I've come up with something that is both garage and shed-suitable. Again, track, structures, layout, etc. are notional.

 

This has a 45" radius on the visible section and 24" on the un-scenicked curves in order to handle literally any locomotive I can imagine, and eradicate 'trainset curve' problems. I was very against having a shelf layout in the garage, but I feel if I can ensure the non-modelled areas are slim and neat, more like furniture than rough hewn timber then this won't be an issue.  I think given the exit positions of the scenic section I could probably get the layout down to approx 9" width, and would probably use a jigsaw to cut back the non-scenic boards as close to the running lines as possible. They would also have to be relatively thin.

 

 

 

in theory if I wanted to move this out of the shed, I could extend the layout horizontally by slicing at the ends of the scenic sections and splicing in more boards.

 

This orientation however would preclude both putting it in the loft, and exhibiting, and the nature of that long curve precludes a modular approach.

Edited January 18, 2018 by Lacathedrale

[Lacathedrale]

It seems we are mostly back where most of the original suggestions I got ended up: a permanent shelf-mounted layout in the shed along 1.5 walls. Certainly not a bad place to be, but permanent fixtures such this requires more gravity in decision making than 'let's whack up something on a trestle table and see if it sticks'. I feel like if I'm going to go as far as to build shelf brackets, brass hardware on varnished shelves, contoured fascia (for clearance below) and so on, then it deserves more than just a plain single track. I'm quite taken with Iain Rice's designs even if they are a little busy, so I wonder if there's a satisfactory midpoint between a pure tail-chaser like Stoke Summit and something with more operational interest like Chee Tor.

 

I've ordered Iain Rice's "Mainlines in Modest Spaces" to see if he has anything specific to say.

[davepallant]

A member of our club is currently building an N gauge layout which is circular and folds in half so that it can go, one piece, into a large estate car. As a test track, which was where I think you started, it gives a maximum radius in the space so that if it is later fitted with scenery it looks natural avoiding small fixed radius curves and the transition curves that often get left out.

 

I'm thinking it would make a nice WCML layout for the Pendolinos coming along soon!

 

Dave