Main line terminus in OO

[jamespetts]

Having made some decent progress with planning a shed to put a new model railway in (provisional internal dimensions: 2.5m x 7.5m), I have been planning a possible layout to go in it. The plans from SCARM are attached (two plans as it is intended to be a two level layout, featuring both a main line terminus and a bit of London Underground sub-surface line). The first plan shows the lower level and the second the upper.

 

The lines are colour coded as follows:

• white: running lines (non-electrified);
• 
  
• blue: electrified lines;
• 
  
• red: sidings and yards; and
• 
  
• green/yellow: fiddle yards/scenic break sections.
• 
  

It is loosely inspired by (but not intended to be a model specifically of) a real London terminus station, and I should be interested to know whether anyone can guess which one. It is intended to be set in the pre-nationalisation period, and possibly be able to run in different eras (1930s, 1910s) just by changing the rolling stock/motive power. At an earlier stage of planning (when I was imagining an attic layout in a smaller space), I had even wondered whether I might be able to operate the layout with a different set of stock for different railway companies, but I am not sure how viable that this is at this stage.

 

This is planned using the geometary for Peco track (as that is the best available in SCARM at present). I have used only the large radius points, slips and crossings in the scenic sections (although small and medium radius points are used in the fiddle yards) with the intention of being able to use Peco Bullhead rail once the slips and crossings become available (the shed is unlikely to be completed until April, and the baseboards therefore some time after that, so they might well be available by the time that I come to lay track). I did want to use OO finescale track, and the other option that I have been considering is the Marcway points and SMP track (I do not think that my time or skill currently extends to making my own points, and I should rather something reliable and relatively straightforward at this stage so that I can have trains up and running in a relatively short time; I do admire the skill of those who do make their own, however). I am aware that the Marcway points use a different geometary; I am not yet sure which is preferable for my purposes. Any thoughts from those who have used SMP/Marcway products would be appreciated.

 

It is intended that the main line platforms and carriage sidings should be able to take a rake of up to 12 coaches plus a locomotive at either end (the in-bound locomotive and the out-bound locomotive). (Do I have enough roads in the carriage sidings?)

 

Being a large layout, I will not sensibly be able to drive all of the trains myself, so I intend to automate it, so I have set up the spirals with the intention of allowing easier automatic running. I have not yet completed the design of the lower level fiddle yards.

 

I have left space on the lower right hand side for a workbench of up to 1.1m width.

 

One possible issue is that, in order to maintain a gradient of not more than 3% (and even that is steep by my understanding, although only relatively short trains will run on the gradiented sections), I have only been able to get a separation between the two levels of 138mm. I worry about how this might interfere with wiring access for the upper boards, and wonder whether some sort of removable lower part, and/or a lower part with a hole in the middle might be a good idea. I had also wondered whether the lower level "Pudding Lane" section could be made to be entirely removable and be able to accommodate separate, portable fiddle yards, but I have no idea whether this is practical.

 

I have no skill whatsoever in woodwork, and am considering engaging professionals to build the baseboards (but should like to build the rest of the layout myself). I had initially thought of using a local carpenter who had previously worked on skirting boards and curtain poles in my house, but I suspect that a specialist model railway baseboard builder would probably be preferable. I know that DIY is the tradition for model railways, but I should rather not get the baseboards horribly wrong and make a mess of the whole thing. Can anyone recommend a good baseboard builder?

 

In any event, I should be very grateful for feedback on this first draft of my layout plan. Are there any obvious flaws? Have I got the geometary wrong? I know that the track is kinked in some places, but I cannot find any other way of making what is required for the operations that I want fit in the space using only the large radius points, crossings and slips. Might there be some potential to do something more interesting with the lower level station whilst bearing in mind the clearance issues discussed above?

 

Please bear in mind that I have not done any railway modelling since I was about 13, so might well not be as up to speed as some of the more veteran modellers with especially the practical aspects of modelling.

 

Thank you in advance for any thoughts that anyone might have.

[imt]

Delighted you are joining us, and I do hope you find it all great fun.  HOWEVER instant reaction (as from one who has gone through this phase) is that it's too big and far too complicated for your first layout since you last did any railway modelling when you were 13.  By all means get the shed built - man caves are definitely a good idea BUT for heavens sake get the feel of things first.  Have you actually got any stock?  That loco and 12 carriages will set you back about £500 at current prices - how many were you thinking of? Have you thought through how you intend to control a layout that big?  By the way - your through station platforms are about half the size of your terminal platforms?

[Junctionmad]

I cant imagine how you would operate such a layout with a single operator without computer control 

['CHARD]

My honest thoughts...

 

Planning and daydreaming can be close cousins in my experience.  I have a real fear that progress towards such a complex and extensive project could be dauntingly slow, resulting in frustration and loss of impetus and interest.   I would start with a more compact, but scaleable plan, that will enable operation relatively quickly, and provide for future extension.  

 

The other observation, you have crammed literally as much track as possible into every available square nano-inch of space.  While this is a temptation at the outset, it has huge consequences for cost and complexity of construction, ease of operation and access, and leaves little scope for scenic features.

 

These may be your desired outcomes and you may have infinite funds, of course.  But from observation, plans as complex as this frequently falter unless diluted and scaled back to become more achievable.

[jamespetts]

Thank you all for your thoughts and feedback - that is most helpful. To deal first with two of the more specific points before turning to the general point about scale/size: the difference in length between the main line and suburban platforms is intentional: the suburban platforms are 1,500mm long (not including ramps), which equates to 114m at 1:76, which is the same or a similar length to many London Underground stations (e.g., Edgware Road on the Bakerloo line has a platform of exactly 114m in length, and many other Underground platforms are of similar length). This should suffice for a six car EMU, or a five car locomotive hauled train. The main line platforms vary from between 4,000mm (304m at 1:76) and 3,700mm (281m at 1:76), which again is broadly realistic for a main-line terminus (some are even longer, but there is not space for any such thing here).

 

Secondly of the more specific points, I think that I mentioned above that I did want to use computer control/automation for the layout.

 

Thirdly on the more specific points, I do have a little stock from my younger days: it is mainly from the 1980s, with an eclectic mix of steam era and (then) modern era stock; however, there is not a great amount of it. It does include, however, some of those lovely old Harrow Models Q38 stock cars that I do especially want to be able to use.

 

As to the more general, and perhaps more important point, I can see the potential difficulty of a more complex layout. The issue is that there is nowhere at all in my house that I can sensibly fit even a small model railway at present (hence the shed plan). The ideal solution, of course, would be to build a smaller portable railway in the house and then only have the shed built if that does not satisfy on its own (and have the ability to use some of the same stock between the two, perhaps), but that is not an option for me. I did consider building a layout in the loft, but ruled that out after looking into it (and reading the topic on loft issues on this forum).

 

If I am going to have a shed built for a model railway, I cannot sensibly have a small shed and then later upgrade to a larger shed without wasting a huge amount of expense, so, so far as the building is concerned, the only option is to start with as a large a shed as I may desire in the long-term that can sensibly fit into my garden. The 7.7 x 2.9 (internal 7.5 x 2.5) shed appears to be correct for that.

 

If I have a shed of that size, it then seems to make sense to have a model railway that takes full advantage of that size, which is what I have tried to do here. It would be silly, after all, to have a 7.5m x 2.5m space and build a small branch line terminus in N gauge in it.

 

Then there is the question of what things interest me - I am very keen on modelling something that includes (but is not limited to) the London Underground, which practically rules out N gauge (which I did spend some time considering, especially when I was thinking of building in the more limited space in the attic). I also prefer the operational intricacies of a terminus station to a layout in which most trains just enter and leave again (with or without stopping at an intermediate station). This also has the advantage of allowing more to fit into a space (by not needing two sets of turns/fiddle yards or alternatively a doughnut shaped layout which requires a hatch or duck-under to access).

 

Adding all of those things together (a relatively large available space, a preference for including the Underground and a preference for a terminus station), the natural end product seems to be a model representing a London terminus station - which is, of course, a rather large thing. The use of the Underground also suggests a multi-level design (and I seem to recall desiring a layout answering to that description when I was a child).

 

That is the thought process that has lead to the plan that I posted above: I tried to design a layout that would incorporate all of those elements and fit into the space that will be available. I am not too concerned about the relatively limited space for scenery (that is a matter of preference, of course) so long as what is there looks reasonably realistic in itself, but ease of construction and maintenance is perhaps more of an issue.

 

I can see the advantages in many ways of starting with something fairly straightforward that can be got up and running in a relatively short time. A real difficulty is how this short-term aim might be reconciled with the longer-term aim of having a layout that conforms to the elements of interest that I outline above. After all, it ultimately takes considerably more time and expense to build two layouts than it takes to build one layout. The idea of a layout that can provide for future expansion is interesting - but I am not sure how that might be achieved in this instance.

Edited February 20, 2018 by jamespetts

[DCB]

It looks like a complete nightmare, to build, wire up and operate, and massively expensive, The route setting would be a nightmare and fault finding...

 

CJF has some very good layout suggestions in his 60 plans series.

 

It would look very impressive but a bit boring with long straight platforms and I would think a team of 3 or 4 would be needed .to operate and maintain it and they won't fit in your operating well.

 

I helped build an 00 layout in a similar size shed and the achilles heel is the well is too small for the 3 operators really needed even without visitors.   I would suggest a much slimmed down station, more Marylebone than Victoria and simplified trackwork.    Where did this idea that Suburban trains are shorter than main line, come from, the 1930s?

 

You might do better to follow US Practice and have a long thin layout on which you drive trains instead of short fat where you play signalman, or save a few quid and build in 00.  The cost of an N gauge layout per square metre = the cost of an 00 layout X 3

[Siberian Snooper]

I think that I would build the blue bit and associated off scene area first and see how I got on with that. I would build that as an end to end with passive provision for the additional size increase. Tight radius curves, gradients and long trains don't usually mix. If you take a look at the Eastwood Town thread, you will see that Gordon has a lot more space than you and his maximum gradient is 1 in 100 or 1% to get steam locos to haul 10 coach trains up them on 36 inch (900mm) radius curves. Over time and several incarnations he has ended up with a more or less flat roundy roundy.

 

Making boards much over 3 foot (900mm) wide makes it difficult to access tracks at the rear. The bearest minimum between the head of the rail and the underside of a structure above is 60mm, but you will have a problem if something derails, getting access in that sort of space. This may seem like pouring cold water on your grandiose scheme, but it might well save a very expensive mistake.

 

I would get the shed you want built, because as you say you can't make a small shed bigger, on the other hand you don't necessarily need to use all the space in a big shed.

 

There are several prototypes that have LT terminals and mainline through stations, Upminster, Richmond and Ealing Broadway spring to mind and no doubt there are others. Something along these lines will allow you to build the LT as more or less a separate layout and get it running and then add the mainline later. It also has the benefit, that LT trains can have a couple of power cars to enable them to climb steeper gradients and so can go up and over or down and under the mainlines to add different levels.

['CHARD]

On second look and further reflection, the curves are down to (or tighter than) first radius in the plan.  I can't see that working reliably with twelve coach trains, irrespective of the inevitable train set appearance, and it occurs to me that the track spacing on the corners is insufficient for trains to pass on adjacent tracks without fouling.

[mdvle]

If I am going to have a shed built for a model railway, I cannot sensibly have a small shed and then later upgrade to a larger shed without wasting a huge amount of expense, so, so far as the building is concerned, the only option is to start with as a large a shed as I may desire in the long-term that can sensibly fit into my garden. The 7.7 x 2.9 (internal 7.5 x 2.5) shed appears to be correct for that.

 

No one is saying not to build the shed you have planned.  But, and this is important, just because you have the space doesn't mean you need to immediately (or even ever) fill it with track.

 

If I have a shed of that size, it then seems to make sense to have a model railway that takes full advantage of that size, which is what I have tried to do here. It would be silly, after all, to have a 7.5m x 2.5m space and build a small branch line terminus in N gauge in it.

Why?  Why do you feel you have to "fill the space" (I ask because it will help others understand where you are coming from, and also to maybe have you think through why you believe this).

 

Aside from the layout itself, you will (if the layout is successful) being spending a significant amount of time in this shed and thus making it a welcoming environment can also be a key design decision.  Maybe allow for somewhere to sit comfortably with a work area to work on models, etc.

 

Then there is the question of what things interest me - I am very keen on modelling something that includes (but is not limited to) the London Underground, which practically rules out N gauge (which I did spend some time considering, especially when I was thinking of building in the more limited space in the attic). I also prefer the operational intricacies of a terminus station to a layout in which most trains just enter and leave again (with or without stopping at an intermediate station). This also has the advantage of allowing more to fit into a space (by not needing two sets of turns/fiddle yards or alternatively a doughnut shaped layout which requires a hatch or duck-under to access).

If you haven't already done so I would suggest reading through this post on Minories http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/131100-is-minories-operationally-satisfying/ and look at the video linked in that posting that demonstrate a lot can be done with a smaller terminus station (of which London certainly has some in the 6 track range).

 

 

I can see the advantages in many ways of starting with something fairly straightforward that can be got up and running in a relatively short time. A real difficulty is how this short-term aim might be reconciled with the longer-term aim of having a layout that conforms to the elements of interest that I outline above. After all, it ultimately takes considerably more time and expense to build two layouts than it takes to build one layout. The idea of a layout that can provide for future expansion is interesting - but I am not sure how that might be achieved in this instance.

I would argue it would be cheaper, certainly in cost, if not also time, to go the 2 layout route.

 

While I haven't yet built a layout, from reading about others doing it one is apparent is that there is lots of experimentation, and certainly lots of mistakes, made in the process of building a layout.

 

My goal, when I have the space, is to make a small layout to learn with and make mistakes with.  Thus when the large layout gets done (and to honest if it gets done) I will have experience that will hopefully help minimize any expensive mistakes.  It will give me a space to run trains, test my purchases, while allowing me to go slower on the main layout because the urge to get something running can be tempered with playing with the smaller layout.

 

Also note there is nothing to say you have to get rid of a smaller layout when you move to your dream layout, you can always store it under the layout or in the corner of a garage.

[imt]

I think everybody here would applaud you taking up the hobby again.  Most of us have been through similar rushes of blood to the head.  I know I wanted to build something huge to make up for all the missed years.  I am so glad I listened to all those who warned me off.  I didn't understand about radius of curves or the idea of transitions between curves and straights.  I didn't have a clue about the electronics needed to control things - 'cos a sure as God made little fishes you won't manage this without LOTs of electronics (see 

for some of the essentials).  Note that MOST (if not all?) large layouts like this are built by teams of like minded people - often selected for their range of skills.  Laying the track alone will take many months - wiring many weeks more.  This is a long term project which could easily fail - not because of lack of money but sheer exhaustion with little to show for the effort. Money may not be a problem - but ROCI will be!

 

Rule 1 applies - it's your railway do it your way.  Personally I think you will regret this for all the reasons given so far and many.many more you will fall over as you go along.

 

If the sheds too big put a settee in it and an exercise bike!

[Zomboid]

Build a big shed.

Then use it to build a smallish (maybe portable) layout. You don't have to fill it straight away

Then use it to build something bigger.

 

Have you played trains much lately? Do you know what parts of this hobby you enjoy? I say this because when I first came back, I thought I wanted a large 1980s BR main line style thing to watch trains circulate. But when it came to it, what I actually enjoy most is shunting (well, switching) with American rolling stock.

Thankfully I didn't spend lots of money on something that I essentially am not that interested in... It would be silly to build that plan and then find that what you like best is building scenic structures, for example.

[rovex]

Speaking from experience, I don't think I have finished a layout yet. Usually whatever the size and I always aim far to large (but then thats what pleases me) I lose interest before long - usually after the track has been laid and before it has been properly wired up.

 

I'd sugest starting small and perhaps expanding it later so that you always have something you can "play" with.

 

Rovex

[gordon s]

Far be it from me to discourage you from a complex layout, but some of the things don't add up. 12 coaches plus a loco require at least 12' of space.  You have 7.5m of space, so that's 24'. You have six lines at the left hand end of the terminus so that going to need at least 4' with a 3' minimum radius.  That leave you 8' of space for the approach pointwork. I genuinely don't believe you can fit that complexity of pointwork in that space unless you are using small radius pointwork and that will look totally out of place with large locomotives.

 

Feel free to ignore any advice you are given, as I did something similar believing I could make something work.  Ten years later and a big hole in my bank balance, I now appreciate those with much more experience generally know what they are talking about as they've made the same mistakes.

 

A decent layout plan demands perfectly laid track, which means precise woodworking machinery.  Dozen and dozens of turnouts require a bottomless cash pit.  The time taken to do even the simplest thing takes hours and no matter if you're Superman, there aren't enough hours in the day.  If there are, what should be a hobby becomes a job and the same job every day will lead to boredom or divorce or both.

 

Pipe dreams are wonderful things to have, but that's all they are.  Once reality kicks in, you will be glad you chose something simpler to build.

 

Been there, done that and survived.....

 

Good luck.  I hope you can achieve your dreams.....

Edited February 20, 2018 by gordon s

[jonny777]

I don't understand this layout at all. 

 

The blue lines are at a lower level to the grey ones, in order to run below the terminus; and yet they have connections to the main station which must be on one hell of a steep gradient. 

 

I'm not sure I understand the reason for the through station, because if I read the plan correctly, it is completely hidden by the terminus throat above it. 

 

The engine shed layout looks very unprototypical for a large depot, because all movement on and off shed need to cross the turntable. 

 

And the yellow tracks appear to be almost all inaccessible for their length. 

 

Apologies if I have interpreted this wrong. 

[jamespetts]

Thank you all very much for your replies: that is most helpful. Again, I will respond to some of the more specific points before moving onto the more general issues.

 

Firstly, in relation to the number of operators, that is not an issue in itself, since I had stated in the original post that I was interested in computer automation. Secondly, as to the curve radius, I made sure to set a minimum curvature in SCARM of a 438mm radius, which equates to a second radius curve. None of the track in this plan has a lower radius than 438mm. Small radius Streamline points are specified for the hidden areas, but all of the scenic areas use only large radius points; likewise, the tight curves, apart from the depot, are all in non-scenic areas (denoted by green/yellow on the plan), so looking akin to a train set is avoided by that expedient. Thirdly on the specific issues, the gradients were not intended to be used with the long trains: the idea was for them to come into the terminus on the flat, the gradients being used by trains descending into the LT lines, which would generally be shorter trains. As to the idea that suburban trains are shorter than long-distance trains, this varies by region; I know that some places have very long commuter trains (all the former Southern network into London, for instance), which are just as long as the main-line trains on that route, but I was interested in Great Western, where 5 (sometimes strengthened to 6) was the normal number of carriages in suburban trains. I should also note that the plan did specifically provide for a 1.1m wide workbench (notice that the baseboards are longer on one side than on the other side for this reason).

 

In respect of Jonny777's comments, my plan was perhaps a little unclear: the blue lines are intended to be electrified, not at a different level: the difference in level is intended to be represented by the two different layers, so some of the blue lines would be visible on the lower through station, which was planned to be visible from the side even though it is underneath the terminus (it is intentionally close to the edge of the baseboards to be more visible). As to the turntable, I could not find another way of fitting it into the space available.

 

I do not think that I could sensibly build just the blue (i.e. electrified) parts of this specific planned layout: the plan is loosely inspired by Paddington (hence the main and relief lines separated by use rather than direction, the short suburban platforms, the extra long platform at the southern end, the Hammersmith & City dive-under at the Western end and the tunnel beyond the Eastern end then joining with other Underground tracks from a different direction, etc.), and the blue parts denote electrified (fourth rail) lines; the suburban platforms are mixed use for terminating trains and those continuing into central London, and there were many trains that were operated by being steam hauled into Paddington and then changing to an electric locomotive at that point for their onward journey (and the same in reverse). I do not think, therefore, that the Underground lines in isolation would be workable here.

 

However, turning to the more general point, I do see considerable force in the point that, if I have not done much of this recently, I really need to get a feel for how to do it and what is achievable by building something smaller scale before considering a larger scale project, so that I can have a better idea of what is feasible, and that doing so may well avoid what might transpire to be costly mistakes, as well as not postponing the enjoyment that  might be had from such a project until a very large and complex thing has been largely completed. One thing that I am considering, although I am not yet sure how this might work, is to build a more interesting version of the lower level station in the plan first, and then consider later a possibly simplified version of the upper level of the plan. One of the main constraints in the vertical spacing which I can see being problematic is caused by the need for the lines going underground to do so at two points: firstly, to rise from the dive-under at the western end, and then descend again into the eastern end. An arrangement in which only one of these inclines is necessary means that the whole of one side might be used as an incline, allowing twice the vertical separation. Certainly, I am very attracted to the idea of a small layout that could then be incorporated into a larger layout at a later time, and share the stock, or at least much of it; but if I am to do that, I will need to know what will actually fit into the eventual larger layout, and therefore to plan that in detail, too.

 

I note with interest the comment along the lines of "more Marylebone, less Victoria": when I was contemplating a layout in the attic, I had designed an entirely different plan, but incorporating some of the elements here (long platforms - there only long enough for 10 carriages, Underground lines serving separate platforms at the non-terminus end of the station and then a separate further Underground station beyond a scenic break, the additional distance being simulated by the trains automatically pausing in the intermediate tunnel for the amount of time that it would take to traverse the several kilometres to the next station, and an engine shed and carriage sidings) which I had called "Maryington" as it was inspired by a sort of cross between Paddington and Marylebone. That had 9 platforms plus the two suburban platforms, and was still very intensively covered with track, although I later realised that some of the curves on that plan were of the same radius as first radius curves and would have been too tight for much of what I wanted to use there in any event. One possible difficulty with a Marylebeone inspired layout is a relative lack of ready to run stock used on the Great Central - from what I found out when I looked into the matter, the LNER largely continued to use old GCR locomotives and carriages on the line. In particular, there is a lack of suitable suburban passenger engines and carriages.

 

As to using all of the space, the reason that I did this was because space, especially linear space, is notoriously the most significant constraint in railway modelling. Thus, a layout that can take full advantage of the available space is one that will be less constrained than one that cannot. We all have our own preferences as to what compromises to make, of course, but I find unrealistically short trains and tight corners in visible parts of the layout to be particularly unsatisfying, which is why I designed the plan attached to my first post to have the corners mostly behind the scenic break, and to have long platforms and carriage sidings.

 

In terms of simplifying/redesigning, it would help me to know a little more about some of the constraints within which I ought to work in order to achieve something workable. The maximum width beyond which it is difficult to reach items is useful to know (900mm was suggested; I am fairly tall (6ft 1) and thus have fairly long arms, so might 1m be workable). Several have mentioned the time taken to lay track; can anyone estimate how much track can be laid in a given amount of time? In terms of wiring, is there a maximum density of some sort which can sensibly be expressed numerically that it is preferable to observe to avoid unworkable wiring?

 

I am definitely keen to have some sort of main line terminus with a mix of suburban and long-distance workings, carriage sidings and an engine shed (subject to having a go with a smaller layout first which might hopefully fit into the larger layout in due course to gain experience). Perhaps reviving the Maryington idea for a larger space might work, and have the suburban lines shared with the Underground (as on the LTSR), reducing the number of lines coming into the station, and also reducing the number of platforms, perhaps.

 

In one sense, I am rather tempted to buy a small train set with DCC (and the higher quality stock), set it up on my floor and see how that works out (and test various DCC control options), but I will need to know that I will not be buying stock that I will ultimately not be using, which, in turn, involves planning what I actually will be using. That also has the difficulty that I suspect that one cannot set up point motors without fixing track to baseboards (or else the motor might move instead of the point blades), so testing the wiring and control of these things might have to await a shed in any event.

 

One other thing on which I am keen in the longer term is to be able to model what is probably my favourite period of railway history, the Edwardian period. This has to be a long-term project, as I will need to acquire the skill to build stock from kits/3d prints, as there is not enough ready to run stock available from that era, but I should ideally want a layout that could equally plausibly be set in the 1930s (so that I can use my lovely old Harrow Models Q38 cars - albeit they were not called Q then, of course) and, with a change only of stock (and perhaps one or two strategic and easily removable scenic items such as road vehicles), have it represent the period circa 1910.

 

In any event, thank you all for your various replies: it is most helpful. I am definitely leaning towards the small then large approach, but need to think carefully about (and would appreciate anyone's thoughts on) how the one might best relate to the other to avoid duplication (I am especially keen on the idea, surprisingly seldom exploited in railway modelling from what I can tell, of having two separate stations on a layout, separated, not by a scale distance, but a scenic break and a computer controlled pause to simulate the scale time to traverse the distance between them, the smaller station being suburban in nature and the larger station a main line terminus; so this gives the somewhat obvious possible solution of starting with the suburban station; but how best to do that is another matter entirely).

[mdvle]

I note with interest the comment along the lines of "more Marylebone, less Victoria": when I was contemplating a layout in the attic, I had designed an entirely different plan, but incorporating some of the elements here (long platforms - there only long enough for 10 carriages, Underground lines serving separate platforms at the non-terminus end of the station and then a separate further Underground station beyond a scenic break, the additional distance being simulated by the trains automatically pausing in the intermediate tunnel for the amount of time that it would take to traverse the several kilometres to the next station, and an engine shed and carriage sidings) which I had called "Maryington" as it was inspired by a sort of cross between Paddington and Marylebone. That had 9 platforms plus the two suburban platforms, and was still very intensively covered with track, although I later realised that some of the curves on that plan were of the same radius as first radius curves and would have been too tight for much of what I wanted to use there in any event. One possible difficulty with a Marylebeone inspired layout is a relative lack of ready to run stock used on the Great Central - from what I found out when I looked into the matter, the LNER largely continued to use old GCR locomotives and carriages on the line. In particular, there is a lack of suitable suburban passenger engines and carriages.

While I can't speak for those who suggested that, I think what they were more suggesting was doing a fictitious terminal station that would allow you to have fewer tracks/platforms rather than giving up the GWR.

 

Trying to recreate Paddington / Waterloo / etc., whether accurate or just in a resemblance, while an attractive idea quickly adds up in cost and complexity.

 

Having said that, if you really want to do it go ahead.  Just be aware going in that it will be a significant time/money commitment (without considering the cost of making it computer controlled).

 

There certainly are some examples of large® stations on RMweb to look at, but also look at the start dates on these layouts and read through them (and ask questions if you want) to see how much work they are putting in each week/month/year and compare that to your situation to see if you have the resources.

 

Regardless of what your ultimate layout currently is, starting small to gain experience would still be advisable.

 

 

As to using all of the space, the reason that I did this was because space, especially linear space, is notoriously the most significant constraint in railway modelling. Thus, a layout that can take full advantage of the available space is one that will be less constrained than one that cannot. We all have our own preferences as to what compromises to make, of course, but I find unrealistically short trains and tight corners in visible parts of the layout to be particularly unsatisfying, which is why I designed the plan attached to my first post to have the corners mostly behind the scenic break, and to have long platforms and carriage sidings.

The comments weren't about the length of your layout.  As you say, linear space is an issue.  Rather, we were commenting on the fact that your trackwork totally covers your layout.  While this was quite common previously, it has fallen out of favour with many of us deciding a "less is more" approach works better.  Certainly modelling a city area does mean more trackwork than a small country branch, but sometimes compromises on what you model can lead to a more satisfying layout.

 

 

In terms of simplifying/redesigning, it would help me to know a little more about some of the constraints within which I ought to work in order to achieve something workable. The maximum width beyond which it is difficult to reach items is useful to know (900mm was suggested; I am fairly tall (6ft 1) and thus have fairly long arms, so might 1m be workable). Several have mentioned the time taken to lay track; can anyone estimate how much track can be laid in a given amount of time? In terms of wiring, is there a maximum density of some sort which can sensibly be expressed numerically that it is preferable to observe to avoid unworkable wiring?

To a large extent only you know the constraints.  For many of us budget is a constraint, for a fortunate few budget is something to not worry about.

 

You certainly shouldn't be telling us what your budget is, but just consider this.  I quickly did a count of points on your plan and got 82.  A quick check online reveals a price of between £10 and £12.50 depending on brand/rail.  So just in points you are looking at spending between £820 to £1025 (and that is assuming you don't want to be more accurate and go for the bullhead points, which at £37 will increase the price substantially even though you wouldn't need to use them on hidden or storage tracks).

 

I didn't bother counting the crossings/slips, but depending on their numbers it can also be a substantial cost.

 

Now, if you are fine spending that on part of your trackwork, that's okay.  But for many of us we would rather spend that money on more locos or rolling stock.

 

The issue with reach is not so much what you with long arms can do, but what can you do without risking damaging either your layout or rolling stock.  Reaching in a long distance risks you brushing up against scenery, buildings, signals, or a passing train with your body while you try to extend the reach of your arm.  This is influenced to a large extent by the height you have your layout, but many people prefer to have the layouts reasonably high.

 

 

 

In one sense, I am rather tempted to buy a small train set with DCC (and the higher quality stock), set it up on my floor and see how that works out (and test various DCC control options), but I will need to know that I will not be buying stock that I will ultimately not be using, which, in turn, involves planning what I actually will be using. That also has the difficulty that I suspect that one cannot set up point motors without fixing track to baseboards (or else the motor might move instead of the point blades), so testing the wiring and control of these things might have to await a shed in any event.

Consider that the advice to try a smaller layout first doesn't have to be expensive.

 

A short section of baseboard, a small amount of track, one or two points, and you run/test the equipment you buy or build, learn about track laying, mounting point motors, wiring, scenery (ballast ...).  But also try other aspects of the hobby, you may find that you really like building kits, or scratchbuilding (both perhaps relevant to your desire to go Edwardian), and thus you want to build a simpler layout so you can devote more time/money to the making of stock.  Or maybe you decide you really like doing scenery or building structures.

 

There are lots of small layouts for inspiration, for example maybe check out the Cameo competition.

 

 

[jamespetts]

Thank you for your thoughts. There seem to be three main strands to the points that you are making, if I have understood correctly, viz.;

(1) the proportion of the layout covered in track (irrespective of absolute size or complexity);

(2) the resource commitment required for a layout of this degree of complexity; and

(3) the need to acquire experience on something simple before progressing to something complex.

 

Taking these in reverse order, the third point I do take - it is just a matter of thinking about how to approach things with a larger layout in mind. One possibility is, as outlined above, something that could fit into a larger layout, although that does then require planning the larger layout to see how it would fit in first. Another is building something totally different (a branch line, perhaps, or even an N gauge layout set in relatively modern times; although how useful would N gauge experience be for an ultimate OO gauge layout?). The other possibility is a very temporary floor layout, but I am not sure how useful that that is really likely to be in terms of modelling experience.

 

As to the second issue, this is more difficult to balance/calibrate. I have looked at the videos of the McKinley Railway, and that is four or five times the size of what I am after, and it is in the process of being extended. This chap seems to have had a substantial thing, too.

 

Can anyone give me any idea how to predict the time that laying and wiring any given amount of track is likely to take (e.g., "I made layout X (link to picture/track diagram), and I estimate that it took a total of Y hours to lay the track and X hours to do the wiring)? Once one has the track laid and wired, one can at least enjoy operating the layout and adding scenery can come later (and one can start with the basic scenery such as ballasting, platforms, engine sheds, etc., and then move onto more purely decorative items in due course). The scenery is the sort of thing that one can consider as the long tail of the project - something that is never truly finished and on which one can always do a little more as and when one feels like it; but the track plan and the wiring have a definite completion state before which the layout cannot operate and after which it can and can be satisfying to an extent even without scenery.

 

(I must confess, I am quite looking forward to the wiring/computer control aspect - one of my other hobbies, also transport related, is computer programming - for years, I have been, and am still, working on a fork of the open source transport game "Simutrans" (the fork being Simutrans-Extended), having, for example, spent some time adding realistic railway signalling (everything from time interval to moving block) in recent years, so am used to thinking about computer control logic, and it would be splendid to apply this to something practical that moves in the physical world and looks splendid; I am also keen to set up a work bench and have a go at kit building and even 3d printing/modelling, although I have no idea whether I will be any good at these things, especially the fine painting, and am watching with interest developments in colour 3d printing, which seems to be not quite ready for model railway use yet).

 

In relation to the parts, here is a parts list generated by SCARM: I make that 109 sets of points/crossings/slips in total, including those in the scenic and non-scenic areas.

 

As to the proportion of the layout that is covered with track, this seems to me to be more of a matter of individual taste/changing fashions more than one of practical difficulty. In so far it is just an issue of taste, I am happy with having a largely track dominated layout as my interest is really in interestingly intricate operations rather than watching trains go by, so long as what is actually there looks real enough (there is nothing wrong in principle with assuming that the areas that one has chosen to model are that slice of the imagined reality being created that contains the railway and not much else). That is not to deprecate some of the beautiful layouts that have large quantities of excellent scenery - I am sure that many who frequent these forums have seen the amazing S&DJR layout that somebody has managed to build in O gauge(!), and the wonderful recreation of the landscape and those lovely little purple flowers - those are truly works of art (quite literally, in my view). But that is not the only way of doing it, and there is no reason in principle that one might not be happy with something where scenery, while still present, is a rather secondary thing to the track itself.

 

However, I should like to make sure that I have correctly understood - is the density (as distinct from the absolute amount) of track likely to be a problem with construction and maintenance? Likewise, is the length of platforms likely to be a problem in and of itself (I notice that even the McKinley Railway had platforms long enough for only 8 carriages, which is interesting - that seems to be considered a long train in model railway terms), distinct from the point that some may consider that length of platform to be an uninteresting use of space? It would very much help me to be able to separate problems that fall into the "too big generally" category from those that fall into the "impractical in any event" category so that I can have a better understanding of what sort of solution is necessary.

 

I can see the possible issue with the number of platforms: the width of that side of the layout as planned over the full set of platforms is 1.1m, 20cm longer than what has been given as the maximum recommended reach width of 0.9m. However, a 1m width is required for a twin track loop back at a minimum of a 438mm radius, so this does constrain the width somewhat at the points where such a loopback is needed. Indeed, the number of platforms comes from taking the width necessary for the underground loop-back on the terminus side, and fitting in as many platforms as could be fit into the width at that point, which ended up with a total of 13 (not including the split suburban platforms).

 

As to the fictitious terminal station, that was rather what I had in mind with the original attic track plan (attached for reference), which I named "Maryington" as a portmanteau of Marylebone and Paddington (and the small station being "Pudding Lane" as I like pudding). As will be noted, I made an error in my previous message: this design had 9 platforms including the suburban platforms, not in addition to them. A reason that I moved away from that idea is that I liked to have an idea of how the (fictionalised) terminus fit into the national railway network and where the trains leaving it might be going to so that I could have a timetable with, e.g., the 12.04 to Oxford or the 11.30 to Penzance, etc.. It is harder to do that with something perhaps more abstract - would a train from Maryington be going to Swansea or Sheffield?

 

In any event, thank you again for all of your help. I have not made up my mind yet what to do (or even actually committed to having a shed installed, although I have now got a proper quote for one), but the more information that I have about the issue the better that I will be able to decide what I ultimately want to do, when and in what order.

Edited February 21, 2018 by jamespetts

[Siberian Snooper]

Can I suggest that you purchase enough track to stand your longest proposed train on in a straight line plus a bit and the 2nd radius curves and lay an oval of track, possibly on the floor and see if said train can actually accomplish what you wish to achieve. I don't think any of us have seen 10/12 coach trains negotiate 2nd radius curves, I certainly haven't. You will then at least have an idea of what is or is not possible, I for one would be interested to see if it will work.

[The Stationmaster]

On second look and further reflection, the curves are down to (or tighter than) first radius in the plan.  I can't see that working reliably with twelve coach trains, irrespective of the inevitable train set appearance, and it occurs to me that the track spacing on the corners is insufficient for trains to pass on adjacent tracks without fouling.

 

Quite agree - squeezing that into a shed about 8 feet wide is going to be a tight fit to say the very least.  I',m looking at a layout room in my garage which is 9 feet wide (by just under 17 feet long) and have run into layout planning difficulties because it is so narrow.  And I'm looking at a lot less railway than you are which left me wondering if you're actually planning an N gauge layout.   

 

By the way a 6 car emu is going to be longer than an =114metre long platform unless it is very early stock

[Pete the Elaner]

If you have not built a layout for some time, then small is definitely the way to go.

 

Getting something running is a massive boost to enthusiasm. Enthusiasm naturally reduces with time until you reach a goal which tops it up. If you take too long to get to this point, then you could very likely lose enthusiasm completely.

You also learn things with layouts, putting them right with the next one. With a big one, you don't get this chance & you may end up applying techniques for the sake of consistency which you are no longer happy with.

You will very likely build a 'do better next time' list but a big layout takes so long to complete that there will never be a next time.

 

Why do you prefer a shed over a loft? Even a new shed is not likely to be the driest of environments & both will be very cold during the winter.

 

Edit: I have just seen your thread about shed v loft. Too long to read through completely but I find my fairly new shed to be ok for bikes but would not like to keep a layout in there.

I have had a loft layout in the past & the environment was a lot drier.

 

Have you wondered why so many of us do everything ourselves? If I were to count up the hours I had spent on my layout & halve it (because a professional would/should be twice as quick) then work out what rate per hour I would charge at minimum wage, my layout would cost an absolute fortune. A basic 4'x2' board would not take too long to build, but anything more complex would increase the build time & cost very sharply.

Edited February 21, 2018 by Pete the Elaner

[Denbridge]

Having made some decent progress with planning a shed to put a new model railway in (provisional internal dimensions: 2.5m x 7.5m), I have been planning a possible layout to go in it. The plans from SCARM are attached (two plans as it is intended to be a two level layout, featuring both a main line terminus and a bit of London Underground sub-surface line). The first plan shows the lower level and the second the upper.

 

The lines are colour coded as follows:

•  
• white: running lines (non-electrified);
•  
• blue: electrified lines;
•  
• red: sidings and yards; and
•  
• green/yellow: fiddle yards/scenic break sections.
•  

It is loosely inspired by (but not intended to be a model specifically of) a real London terminus station, and I should be interested to know whether anyone can guess which one. It is intended to be set in the pre-nationalisation period, and possibly be able to run in different eras (1930s, 1910s) just by changing the rolling stock/motive power. At an earlier stage of planning (when I was imagining an attic layout in a smaller space), I had even wondered whether I might be able to operate the layout with a different set of stock for different railway companies, but I am not sure how viable that this is at this stage.

 

This is planned using the geometary for Peco track (as that is the best available in SCARM at present). I have used only the large radius points, slips and crossings in the scenic sections (although small and medium radius points are used in the fiddle yards) with the intention of being able to use Peco Bullhead rail once the slips and crossings become available (the shed is unlikely to be completed until April, and the baseboards therefore some time after that, so they might well be available by the time that I come to lay track). I did want to use OO finescale track, and the other option that I have been considering is the Marcway points and SMP track (I do not think that my time or skill currently extends to making my own points, and I should rather something reliable and relatively straightforward at this stage so that I can have trains up and running in a relatively short time; I do admire the skill of those who do make their own, however). I am aware that the Marcway points use a different geometary; I am not yet sure which is preferable for my purposes. Any thoughts from those who have used SMP/Marcway products would be appreciated.

 

It is intended that the main line platforms and carriage sidings should be able to take a rake of up to 12 coaches plus a locomotive at either end (the in-bound locomotive and the out-bound locomotive). (Do I have enough roads in the carriage sidings?)

 

Being a large layout, I will not sensibly be able to drive all of the trains myself, so I intend to automate it, so I have set up the spirals with the intention of allowing easier automatic running. I have not yet completed the design of the lower level fiddle yards.

 

I have left space on the lower right hand side for a workbench of up to 1.1m width.

 

One possible issue is that, in order to maintain a gradient of not more than 3% (and even that is steep by my understanding, although only relatively short trains will run on the gradiented sections), I have only been able to get a separation between the two levels of 138mm. I worry about how this might interfere with wiring access for the upper boards, and wonder whether some sort of removable lower part, and/or a lower part with a hole in the middle might be a good idea. I had also wondered whether the lower level "Pudding Lane" section could be made to be entirely removable and be able to accommodate separate, portable fiddle yards, but I have no idea whether this is practical.

 

I have no skill whatsoever in woodwork, and am considering engaging professionals to build the baseboards (but should like to build the rest of the layout myself). I had initially thought of using a local carpenter who had previously worked on skirting boards and curtain poles in my house, but I suspect that a specialist model railway baseboard builder would probably be preferable. I know that DIY is the tradition for model railways, but I should rather not get the baseboards horribly wrong and make a mess of the whole thing. Can anyone recommend a good baseboard builder?

 

In any event, I should be very grateful for feedback on this first draft of my layout plan. Are there any obvious flaws? Have I got the geometary wrong? I know that the track is kinked in some places, but I cannot find any other way of making what is required for the operations that I want fit in the space using only the large radius points, crossings and slips. Might there be some potential to do something more interesting with the lower level station whilst bearing in mind the clearance issues discussed above?

 

Please bear in mind that I have not done any railway modelling since I was about 13, so might well not be as up to speed as some of the more veteran modellers with especially the practical aspects of modelling.

 

Thank you in advance for any thoughts that anyone might have.

Most clubs would balk at building something this complicated, let alone an individual. Invariably projects such as this don't ever get finished or even substantially completed once the builder realises exactly how big the task is. And even if you did build it, do you have an army of operators to run it? If not, most of it would be effectively wasted space gathering dust. Then there is the cost factor, just count the number of turnouts, lengths of plain track, pointmotors etc, etc. That is before even considering the amount of stock required. Far too ambitious and impractical.

[Denbridge]

Most clubs would balk at building something this complicated, let alone an individual. Invariably projects such as this don't ever get finished or even substantially completed once the builder realises exactly how big the task is. And even if you did build it, do you have an army of operators to run it? If not, most of it would be effectively wasted space gathering dust. Then there is the cost factor, just count the number of turnouts, lengths of plain track, pointmotors etc, etc. That is before even considering the amount of stock required. Far too ambitious and impractical.

I would add that having a large shed doesn't mean it needs to be crammed full of track. Use space for trains to run in open countryside.  

[mdvle]

For anyone interested I put the track parts list into an online retailer, and the track cost for the layout is £3103.50

[mdvle]

There is no formula for how long things will take, there are too many variables and I don't think anybody really times themselves doing these tasks.  Just like there is no formula for cost, other than bigger is more expensive.

 

Regarding a "test" layout, and worrying about making it fit into your eventual layout to not waste things, consider that a test layout doesn't have to be expensive.  A short layout, small amount of track and a couple of points and the trackwork will be under £50, you get a bit more adventurous and do a switching layout and maybe you spend £100 on track.  Considering that your layout will require over £3000 in track that looks like a bargain even if you end up throwing it away as a (relatively) cheap way to learn and experiment.

 

OO or N, most of the lessons should be the same, if anything I would guess things would be easier in OO given the size difference.  But if N allows you to experiment and learn now vs having to wait a couple of years, N would appear to be the better choice even though with OO you could use your eventual stock.  You could also eventually sell anything you don't want long term and get at least some of your money back.

 

In your last message you say 

 

 

Indeed, the number of platforms comes from taking the width necessary for the underground loop-back on the terminus side, and fitting in as many platforms as could be fit into the width at that point

 

 

which makes it sound like the desire/need for that loop-back is driving a (to many of us) compromise on the main terminal.

 

Perhaps then you need to rethink what is important, and if necessary how to get it.  Perhaps model two entirely separate layouts, or instead of having the loop-back run the track around the outer edge of the shed (using lift-outs for the doorway), thus allowing a narrowing of the layout to a more comfortable size.

 

As for size and density, a general rule will be simple.  More track means more maintenance, more points means more maintenance, more rolling stock means more maintenance, etc.  Things will fail or act up with time, wiring will fail, point motors will fail or otherwise malfunction, ...

 

None of which means you shouldn't do this if it is what you want (and can afford both the money and time).

 

As for maximum width, a look at your plan shows a width of about 19 tracks (counting a platform as a track.).  Now there is a large terminal layout here on RMweb (his layout started out at 20'x9.5' vs your shed size of 24.6'x8.2').  Look at this picture from his layout and count tracks to get an idea of just how much a reach it will be to get at the back of your layout, and see a likely reason why when he abandoned being an exhibition layout he expanded his shed and moved this section from being against a wall to having access from both sides.

 

http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/64065-leeds-city-the-midland-side-in-4mm/page-25&do=findComment&comment=2748918

Edited February 21, 2018 by mdvle

[Junctionmad]

Couple of comments 

 

Im building a new shed, 10metre by 3.5m , an office takes up 3 metres, leaving me with a 7 x 3,5 metre space,   I would not dream of having a radius under 36"  in 00, anything else is toy trains.  Gradients need to be 1:100 , i.e. an 80mm rise needs a run of 8 meters , i.e. virtually the length and thats not with any curves 

 

But ( and Im an electronics engineer by trade ), I wouldn't dream of filling that space with such a complex track plan as this.  In DCC , computer automation is very complex and such a layout will consume years and years of effort 

 

quite frankly , its way too ambitious 

Edited February 21, 2018 by Junctionmad