nicolasgreenin Posted February 16, 2018 Share Posted February 16, 2018 Hi All, I am helping a friend plan a layout for there son, He has a large bedroom and they have had a baseboard constructed it is 1200 x 2000 mm He would like a small village, quarry/industrial area, Double track with tunnel, double track level crossing and possibly an incline/raised area. They have already got some Metcalfe building including a double tunnel set. He has quite a bit of Hornby track. We have come up with the following plan but I am not happy as it looks too busy. There are a few issue with this plan that stick out to me, the incline is 3% and R1 curves and even at this gradient I am not sure the track will clear tunnel mouth which from memory are 110 mm high! I have 3% inclines on my layout and they are trouble but do work. Also it looks quite busy but that is always an issue with a small layout of this nature. Any help would be greatly appreciated Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
nicolasgreenin Posted February 16, 2018 Author Share Posted February 16, 2018 This is another idea with out the incline Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
nicolasgreenin Posted February 16, 2018 Author Share Posted February 16, 2018 I have simplified the last plan so far this is my favorite Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
DCB Posted February 17, 2018 Share Posted February 17, 2018 You really should look at the 60 Plans for small railways by CJ Freezer. It looks too busy because you are using set track which gives excessive double track spacing, its OK for 6 year olds building double track ovals which aren't all that even with 64ft coaches and Pacifics or for 13.5" radius curves but steals width compared to streamline with its 50mm spacing The layout is fine for a kid to build on a baseboard from random Hornby track and break it up again and build something else. It isn't going to work as a permanent layout with scenery. For one thing there is no room between tracks on the curve for a tunnel wall, there is no run round for the quarry, the platform is minute. You can't really do double track and 18" minimum radius on a 1200mm board. If you go 15" and 18" radius you free up width for the second station platform but still there is nowhere to store trains. Even CJF couldn't get a double track continuous run and branch into 1200mm width. Without totally abandoning the concept I would suggest a run round for the terminus and a few extra sidngs. Don't worry about gradients, 1 in 25 will be fine, you only have room for about 2 coaches or 4 wagons or so and a little 0-4-0 will haul those up a 1 in 20 let alone 1 in 25 or 1 in 30. I have about 3 times that much track, double track continuous run, 3 platform terminus with 5 coach platforms, complicated junction, return loop etc in 1300mm X 1800mm albeit with 1st radius in places inspired by a CJF 6X 4 design There are vastly better designs for 8X4 in CJFs books. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Harlequin Posted February 17, 2018 RMweb Gold Share Posted February 17, 2018 Your simplified plan in post #3 is my favourite too. Here are some tweaks you could think about: Turn the inner sidings the other way so that the inner curve is away from the hillside and has a trailing point connection to the running lines. Move one of the crossovers to the other side and make it trailing (or get rid of it completely - you only really need one). The kickback siding will be difficult to use so replace it with a 3rd facing siding for more interesting shunting. Perhaps put an engine shed in one of the corners if there's room. Is the board really 1200*2000 or is it in fact the standard board size, 1220*2440? Those extra 440mm width might make a big difference to what you can do! 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
nicolasgreenin Posted February 17, 2018 Author Share Posted February 17, 2018 Thank you for you help with this yes the baseboard is only 1200*2000 which is a shame. I will change the Hornby track to Peco code 100 and see what difference that makes the reason I went with Hornby is they have most of the track already but given the constraints it might be worth making the change. There is a major advantage going to electro frog points too. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
nicolasgreenin Posted February 17, 2018 Author Share Posted February 17, 2018 You really should look at the 60 Plans for small railways by CJ Freezer. Thank you I will have to see if I can get hold of a copy Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
nicolasgreenin Posted February 17, 2018 Author Share Posted February 17, 2018 (edited) This is a version with a few more tweeks and in Peco code 100 please comment Edited February 17, 2018 by nicolasgreenin Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Philou Posted February 17, 2018 Share Posted February 17, 2018 (edited) Hi Philou here, I prefer the latest plan - but here's a thought. You said right at the beginning that your friend's son wanted a quarry (amongst other things). You seem to have an opportunity of creating a small quarry by using one of the sidings (or add another) and extend it nearly to the side of the tunnel. You can then create a quarry face there. It'll add to the interest and create a reason for the trains being there - did that for my grandson. Cheers, Philip Edit: By the way - where did you get the UK style stock? I've only got some minging East German diesels and rolling stock in my edition of SCARM. Edited February 17, 2018 by Philou Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Philou Posted February 17, 2018 Share Posted February 17, 2018 Oh, also, if you remove the short straight sections (in tunnel and opposite end) you would have enough room to offset the layout slightly (southwards) and get a 'proper' double platformed station on the northside - an error I made with the first grandson's layout. I altered it on the MkII version . Cheers, Philip Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
PatB Posted February 18, 2018 Share Posted February 18, 2018 (edited) Even CJF couldn't get a double track continuous run and branch into 1200mm width. I can think of at least two of his 6x4s where he managed exactly that, although, at these small sizes I can imagine the extra 20mm width being quite helpful. Edit: I've never seen either built as drawn though. One of them did. however, appear in stretched form (though, IIRC, in length only) as Owlburn and Mousehill in RM in about 1980. Edited February 18, 2018 by PatB Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
nicolasgreenin Posted February 18, 2018 Author Share Posted February 18, 2018 Edit: By the way - where did you get the UK style stock? I've only got some minging East German diesels and rolling stock in my edition of SCARM. I have sent you a message with some scarm files of BR rolling stock I had. I can not take any credit I believe I was sent the a while ago by another forum member. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
nicolasgreenin Posted February 20, 2018 Author Share Posted February 20, 2018 (edited) Here is another plan with the short straights taken out of the loop and more space for sidings and the inner lines go into the hillside for the quarry. The more I look at it I think that 2 sidings on the lower left by the signal box is too much. Please let me know your thoughts. Edited February 20, 2018 by nicolasgreenin Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now