Main line terminus in OO

[jamespetts]

Thank you all for your feedback. I note that some of the points raised in these later posts are ones that have been answered (e.g. stating that the layout will need many operators).

 

I do plan on taking the advice of trying a much smaller layout before building a major layout, so I can have a better idea of what practically is involved; but I should still like to build a layout representing a main line terminus in due course.

 

As to the issue of the curve radii: I realise that tight turns look unrealistic for anything other than trams and narrow gauge railways. That is why almost all of the tight turns are confined to the non-scenic areas. The one place where I have incorporated them in a scenic area is in the depot. On this layout (or another layout with broadly the same concept), the depot access could conceivably be made using a continuous 30" curve rather than tighter curves with straight sections in the middle, although that would reduce track flexibility in that vicinity somewhat.

 

It would be very helpful to know clearly the extent to which 438mm curves (i.e. 2nd radius curves) are a problem other than scenically: i.e., whether any significant reliability problems are likely to result from using them in fiddle yard areas. This is significant, as the ability to use such turns makes a big difference to the ability to have the turn-back loop in the fiddle yards that will make automating the layout hugely easier than it would be without one given the limited width of the planned shed.

[DCB]

There are lots of comments that Dapol locos are not happy on 2nd Radius so I would suggest 3rd and 4th Radius for double track so we are talking 30"  2ft 6" to get round in a loop.

I believe you have 90" usable width so 30/30/30 at the tight point for the operating well. Ours is 33" wide and its tight, obviously if the well is narrowed for the return and widened afterwards the problem can be minimised but I don't see a 4 track return loop really working.

 

2nd radius curves look pretty awful on a big layout, 3ft radius is do able and vastly better looking. Peter Dennys 1960 ish Buckingham layout had some good ideas for the station throat.  I find gently curving platforms look more convincing than straight ones, also lines not parallel to the baseboard edge look more natural

 

I think a much simplified version of your first scheme would be do able if you are talking DMUs for locals but running round or loco changing for steam operation is going to be hugely difficult to automate and I can see a 24 hour day timetable taking a week to run as parallel moves haven't really been worked into the plan. Having the lower level completely separate with underground stock would be a possibility.

Edited February 22, 2018 by DavidCBroad

[Denbridge]

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).

I'll give you one, very basic, reason your plan will not work, aside from the fact it is effectively over ambitious and far too complicated. Gradients, especially gradients on curves. You state 10 coach+ trains. Most modern RTR locomotives will just slide to a halt. Simple as that

[gordon s]

Going through the planning/building regs issue myself right now, so am deep in all the regulations re outbuildings.  I'm sure you're on top of it but there's loads of trigger points on Building Regs and Planning Permission.  Over 30 sq m is one, 2.5m height is another and the distance from the property boundary is another.

 

Trying to find the optimum is like a chess game....:-)

[Harlequin]

Hi James,

 

There's nothing wrong with ambition if you've got the time, money and drive to back it up - and 2500 by 7500 mm is a good space to do something impressive in!

 

But as you are finding, even a relatively large space requires compromise and clever design to accommodate a good model.

 

One of the arts of railway modelling, one of the "black arts" perhaps, is how to compress the real railway beyond simply scaling down prototype elements and yet still give a believable representation of the real thing. (Of course, if your main interest is operation then perhaps realistic appearance may be further down your priority list.)

 

For instance, where a terminus might have 10 platforms in the real world, maybe modelling 6 would convey a good sense of the prototype and 6 coach mainline trains may look entirely believable in a model.

 

138mm between levels should be fine for OO - the minimum is generally thought to be 100mm (depending on your baseboard construction method). 1 in 36 is usually reckoned to be the steepest workable incline for OO - and that only for small trains.

 

See if you can find a copy of C J Freezer's "Plans for larger layouts". It should be inspirational but be wary of his stated minimum radii - they are often tighter than perhaps we would be comfortable with these days.

Edited February 22, 2018 by Harlequin

[Denbridge]

Hi James,

 

There's nothing wrong with ambition if you've got the time, money and drive to back it up - and 2500 by 7500 mm is a good space to do something impressive in!

 

But as you are finding, even a relatively large space requires compromise and clever design to accommodate a good model.

 

One of the arts of railway modelling, one of "black arts" perhaps, is how to compress the real railway beyond simply scaling down prototype elements and yet still give a believable representation of the real thing. (Of course, if your main interest is operation then perhaps realistic appearance may be further down your priority list.)

 

For instance, where a terminus might have 10 platforms in the real world, maybe modelling 6 would convey a good sense of the prototype and 6 coach mainline trains may look entirely believable in a model.

 

138mm between levels should be fine for OO - the minimum is generally thought to be 100mm (depending on your baseboard construction method). 1 in 36 is usually reckoned to be the steepest workable incline for OO - and that only for small trains.

 

See if you can find a copy of C J Freezer's "Plans for larger layouts". It should be inspirational but be wary of his stated minimum radii - they are often tighter than perhaps we would be comfortable with these days.

I'm sorry, but you are wrong regarding gradients. Most RTR locomotives struggle on all but the gentlest of grades. Add curves into those grades and they'll simply slide to a hault. 10-12 coach trains would be impossible. In fact, I doubt most would even haul them on the flat with the radii being considered here.

[jonny777]

Thanks for the explanation James, but the plan still doesn't make sense to me. 

 

Look at the top right hand corner of the layout.

 

 

 

 

 

Two electrified tracks emerge from a tunnel under the terminus. Therefore by definition, these electrified tracks must be at least two inches below the terminus for clearance reasons. 

 

Follow those electrified tracks around to the left, and there is a crossover and two double slips; after which a train on that track could theoretically reverse into the higher level terminus platform.  That appears to me to be a gradient of about 50% given that the platforms adjacent to the blue tracks must be at the lower level. 

 

 

[Harlequin]

I'm sorry, but you are wrong regarding gradients. Most RTR locomotives struggle on all but the gentlest of grades. Add curves into those grades and they'll simply slide to a hault. 10-12 coach trains would be impossible. In fact, I doubt most would even haul them on the flat with the radii being considered here.

I said "steepest workable for small trains"...

 

Railway Modeller magazine state that 1 in 36 is the steepest recommended gradient for OO layout designs submitted to them for publication.

 

I realise that there are lots of different opinions about gradients and what's workable very much depends on individual circumstances like rolling stock, train length and the radius of any curves.

 

BTW: I think James said that only shorter, underground trains were intended to ever traverse his proposed inclines - not 10-12 coach mainline traffic...

[Denbridge]

I said "steepest workable for small trains"...

 

Railway Modeller magazine state that 1 in 36 is the steepest recommended gradient for OO layout designs submitted to them for publication.

 

I realise that there are lots of different opinions about gradients and what's workable very much depends on individual circumstances like rolling stock, train length and the radius of any curves.

 

BTW: I think James said that only shorter, underground trains were intended to ever traverse his proposed inclines - not 10-12 coach mainline traffic...

I have a branch on my under construction layout. The maximum length that would be using it is 4 and occasionally 5 coaches. Since part of it is on a curve, I found after experimenting, that i had to run the gradient over 7' in order for RTR GW and Southern 4-6-0's to happily negotiate it. Said branch is only rising 3 1/2 inches and the curve is a tad under 3' radius. Fortunately most of my loco's are heavy kitbuilt, but I also wanted to be able to use a few RTR loco's.

[Pete the Elaner]

The more I look at the plan for this, the more I get the feeling that it is designed to contain every feature the owner wants.

I have found that compromises are essential & are not always limitations like they first appear to be.

 

I would like a level crossing, some sidings & pointwork to provide interest. I also got part-way through a layout with an AC/DC section changeover.

Ultimately I settled on making a list of this things then sorting them by priority.

My top 2 priorities were to model a real location & also have somewhere for my favourite locos to run & look correct.

What I ended up with was a replica of a prototype WCML location.

Crewe would not fit so I ended up with something which could fit into the space available & unfortunately this contained no sidings or pointwork. The whole lot is in cutting too, so no level crossing.

Even though it is DCC, laying the track & wiring it up took well over 6 months. I found this mentally tough even though I enjoy wiring, had built layouts before & had complete confidence that I would get it running. I would have struggled.

 

I don't expect my layout would be satisfying to many, but the process of fitting it around a 'requirement list' should work for all.

[Denbridge]

I said "steepest workable for small trains"...

 

Railway Modeller magazine state that 1 in 36 is the steepest recommended gradient for OO layout designs submitted to them for publication.

 

I realise that there are lots of different opinions about gradients and what's workable very much depends on individual circumstances like rolling stock, train length and the radius of any curves.

 

BTW: I think James said that only shorter, underground trains were intended to ever traverse his proposed inclines - not 10-12 coach mainline traffic...

As I said, it is not just gradients. The proposed layout is using tight curvature effectively set track. Most modern RTR loco's will balk at getting long trains round them, even on the level. Again, my under construction layout has the main area on the level, 3' minimum curve max 8 coaches and many RTR struggle to pull a train while on the curves and that is 3' radii. I can get round this by using predominantly my kitbuilt stud, adding weight or rebuilding ready made, and in extreme cases building new chassis. I realise though, that option is not always open to many modellers.

[jamespetts]

Thank you all for your replies. Firstly, to answer the query about the top right hand part of the track plan: the part between the tunnel entrance and the slip connexion is intended a gradient (which gradient continues inside the tunnel), so that, by the time that the tracks connect to the slip, they are level with the main line. The crossover is intended to be part of the gradient. The SCARM calculations showed this gradient to be circa 3% (although it is difficult to be exact as SCARM does not allow points to have a different elevation at one end than the other). As I have mentioned before, the plan was for only shorter trains to use the gradiented sections: all of the longer trains would remain on the flat.

 

Thank you for the information regarding curve radii and long trains: this is most helpful. It may well be that adding weight may be necessary in some cases. Can anyone suggest a suitable minimum radius of curve for a non-scenic area for long trains (circa 12 carriages) in OO gauge that can be achieved if the locomotives can be suitably ballasted?

 

In relation to a starter layout, I have been giving some thought to what might work best. I am currently attracted to the idea of an N gauge layout set in the late 1980s (which is something that I should probably want to build in any event), being an intermediate sized through station on a main line in the Western Region, featuring some basic carriage sidings and locomotive stabling facilities for semi-fast locomotive hauled trains to turn (as in Oxford). I should probably have wanted to build a layout conforming to this description in due course in any event, as this depicts the time and place when and where I was growing up.

 

A question is how best to fit this into the proposed shed leaving room for a larger OO gauge layout on a different level. I was considering having this occupying the whole of the wall opposite the windows (but not going around a corner), with space either above or below for the eventual OO gauge layout. Has anyone any suggestions about how to set this arrangement up so that the two layouts do not interfere with one another (e.g by the supports for the higher layout getting in front of the lower layout) and both are at a sensible viewing height? Is there a way of having an adjustable height shelf on brackets affixed to the wall, I wonder, so that the layout can be pushed up when not in use or to work on the electronics and pulled down when in use?

 

I will have a go at designing a track plan for this simpler layout and posting that in a separate thread when I get the time.

Edited February 22, 2018 by jamespetts

[Denbridge]

Thank you all for your replies. Firstly, to answer the query about the top right hand part of the track plan: the part between the tunnel entrance and the slip connexion is intended a gradient (which gradient continues inside the tunnel), so that, by the time that the tracks connect to the slip, they are level with the main line. The crossover is intended to be part of the gradient. The SCARM calculations showed this gradient to be circa 3% (although it is difficult to be exact as SCARM does not allow points to have a different elevation at one end than the other). As I have mentioned before, the plan was for only shorter trains to use the gradiented sections: all of the longer trains would remain on the flat.

 

Thank you for the information regarding curve radii and long trains: this is most helpful. It may well be that adding weight may be necessary in some cases. Can anyone suggest a suitable minimum radius of curve for a non-scenic area for long trains (circa 12 carriages) in OO gauge that can be achieved if the locomotives can be suitably ballasted?

 

In relation to a starter layout, I have been giving some thought to what might work best. I am currently attracted to the idea of an N gauge layout set in the late 1980s (which is something that I should probably want to build in any event), being an intermediate sized through station on a main line in the Western Region, featuring some basic carriage sidings and locomotive stabling facilities for semi-fast locomotive hauled trains to turn (as in Oxford). I should probably have wanted to build a layout conforming to this description in due course in any event, as this depicts the time and place when and where I was growing up.

 

A question is how best to fit this into the proposed shed leaving room for a larger OO gauge layout on a different level. I was considering having this occupying the whole of the wall opposite the windows (but not going around a corner), with space either above or below for the eventual OO gauge layout. Has anyone any suggestions about how to set this arrangement up so that the two layouts do not interfere with one another (e.g by the supports for the higher layout getting in front of the lower layout) and both are at a sensible viewing height? Is there a way of having an adjustable height shelf on brackets affixed to the wall, I wonder, so that the layout can be pushed up when not in use or to work on the electronics and pulled down when in use?

 

I will have a go at designing a track plan for this simpler layout and posting that in a separate thread when I get the time.

To run the kind of trains you envisage you should be looking at 2'6" as a bare minimum radius and preferably more. This isn't an arbitrary figure but one gained through experience. Too be quite frank though, I would seriously suggest you pull back on your ideas. You are trying to cram far too much in the space you have. Even in a larger area it would be seriously unrealistic for one person to build, let alone to finish and maintain. You could still get a decent version of your concept, but one simplified. It would also look better and more importantly be achievable. 

[jonny777]

Thank you all for your replies. Firstly, to answer the query about the top right hand part of the track plan: the part between the tunnel entrance and the slip connexion is intended a gradient (which gradient continues inside the tunnel), so that, by the time that the tracks connect to the slip, they are level with the main line. The crossover is intended to be part of the gradient. The SCARM calculations showed this gradient to be circa 3% (although it is difficult to be exact as SCARM does not allow points to have a different elevation at one end than the other). As I have mentioned before, the plan was for only shorter trains to use the gradiented sections: all of the longer trains would remain on the flat.

 

 

 

 

Sorry, but I now give up. 

[Denbridge]

Thank you all for your replies. Firstly, to answer the query about the top right hand part of the track plan: the part between the tunnel entrance and the slip connexion is intended a gradient (which gradient continues inside the tunnel), so that, by the time that the tracks connect to the slip, they are level with the main line. The crossover is intended to be part of the gradient. The SCARM calculations showed this gradient to be circa 3% (although it is difficult to be exact as SCARM does not allow points to have a different elevation at one end than the other). As I have mentioned before, the plan was for only shorter trains to use the gradiented sections: all of the longer trains would remain on the flat.

 

Thank you for the information regarding curve radii and long trains: this is most helpful. It may well be that adding weight may be necessary in some cases. Can anyone suggest a suitable minimum radius of curve for a non-scenic area for long trains (circa 12 carriages) in OO gauge that can be achieved if the locomotives can be suitably ballasted?

 

In relation to a starter layout, I have been giving some thought to what might work best. I am currently attracted to the idea of an N gauge layout set in the late 1980s (which is something that I should probably want to build in any event), being an intermediate sized through station on a main line in the Western Region, featuring some basic carriage sidings and locomotive stabling facilities for semi-fast locomotive hauled trains to turn (as in Oxford). I should probably have wanted to build a layout conforming to this description in due course in any event, as this depicts the time and place when and where I was growing up.

 

A question is how best to fit this into the proposed shed leaving room for a larger OO gauge layout on a different level. I was considering having this occupying the whole of the wall opposite the windows (but not going around a corner), with space either above or below for the eventual OO gauge layout. Has anyone any suggestions about how to set this arrangement up so that the two layouts do not interfere with one another (e.g by the supports for the higher layout getting in front of the lower layout) and both are at a sensible viewing height? Is there a way of having an adjustable height shelf on brackets affixed to the wall, I wonder, so that the layout can be pushed up when not in use or to work on the electronics and pulled down when in use?

 

I will have a go at designing a track plan for this simpler layout and posting that in a separate thread when I get the time.

having a change of gradient in the short distance between the slip and the crossover is a disaster waiting to happen. This plan is not only too crammed and ambitious it is effectively unworkable. I implore you to set more realistic goals before you shell out 8 grand or more on just baseboards and track to end up with a pig in the poke.

[Siberian Snooper]

Have a go at building a Minories style layout on the flat with 900mm+ radius curves. Just pin the track in place (drill the sleepers to avoid distortion) so that you can get some experience of track laying, solder your feed wires to fishplates, this will allow you to get something running, but also allow you to recover most of the materials if you find that things aren't working as you hoped for. On the other hand if you find it's working OK you can then make things more permanent.

 

I would also suggest that you drill and screw all baseboard components, so that the materials can be reclaimed for further use, unlike Gordon and Eastwood Town who had several trips to the tip with bespoke baseboards.

 

Once you are happy with all the aspects of what you would like to achieve, you can progress to making everything more permanent.

 

Learn to walk before you try to run.

[gordon s]

Thanks for the reminder......

 

James, the last thing I want for you is to take away your dreams, but I've been there and reality is miles away from fantasy.  The sheer time involved in building a large layout is staggering.  Whatever you think it is, multiply it by 10......

 

Even the simplest task can take hours unless you take short cuts.  That's a recipe for disaster as the odd bump here or there, or the odd bit of dead track will take over and undermine the good stuff.  

 

There are few shortcuts in building a layout that you will love...

[jamespetts]

Thank you all for your feedback.

 

I should note that, as I think that I have stated above, the current plan is to start with a smaller layout (on which I will post separately when I have a draft track plan) and then look into a revised version of this concept when I have made some progress with that other layout. The information given here about curve radii and such is useful for that purpose.

 

However, one thing that would particularly help me in thinking about how to deal with starting with a smaller layout is any thoughts that anyone can offer on the question of fitting baseboards for the smaller layout down one side of the shed (the windowless long side) alongside a future larger layout spanning three sides of the shed (and possibly having multiple levels) without:

(1) either the first or future layouts' supports interfering with access to/viewing of the other layout;

(2) either layout being excessively high or excessively low; and

(3) there being insufficient clearance between the two separate layouts to view or access the lower layout conveniently or access the underside of the upper layout conveniently.

 

Does anyone know whether there is any means of having shelf brackets that can be raised and lowered attached to a wall, or alternatively free-standing?

 

Edit: Incidentally, as to the following:

 

 

To run the kind of trains you envisage you should be looking at 2'6" as a bare minimum radius and preferably more. This isn't an arbitrary figure but one gained through experience.

 

Is this minimum radius necessary because of a lack of traction caused by the increased friction of pulling a long load around a sharper curve resulting in wheel-slip?

Edited February 22, 2018 by jamespetts

[mightbe]

The 30" minimum radius is still *very very* tight for what you propose, even if it isn't scenic. Your carriages will literally be dragged off the track at anything lower. 48" radius is much more reliable and looks decent enough if approached with transition curves and an organic flow.

 

I believe everyone has stated, with varying degrees of tact, that this layout is unworkable in its present form. Some have even suggested that it's ridiculous.

 

I won't be offering a dissent. It's essentially a 4x6' train set expanded to senseless proportions, and looks every bit as terrible as that description sounds. 

 

1) it's cramped. Why? You have such a nice space, don't build a layout that needs twice as much room. Right now it's dense and claustrophobic, and not in the good way.

2) it's oppressively angular. Why? Those long, straight platforms do the layout no favors. The storage yard is the most fluid and relaxed bit of track on the layout.

3) it has no sense of proportion. Why build 12' platforms for a room 24' long? My living room is 14' long, and I couldn't imagine how dull and boring it would be to have straight platforms for anything like that length. Besides, the storage yard tracks aren't even half as long.

 

The gradients are out of whack too. Gradients in general are the cause of much grief; many wide modellers avoid them entirely.

 

I hate to be such a downer, but I implore you to study existing layouts, sensibly sized ones, before proceeding with either the mainline terminus or the newly proposed one. My advice for a studying layouts is to look only at layouts that are smaller than what you plan to build. That way when you finally do put pencil to paper you're able to fit everything in.

 

Quentin

Edited February 23, 2018 by mightbe

[Dagworth]

Have a look at Ravensclyffe http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/3288-ravensclyffe/ that's a very complex one man project in 8m x 4m with a 4 scale mile mainline.

So far it has taken me more than ten years and there's less track than you've got. That's DCC and computer controlled too so I understand where you want to go and have been there. Also I am now 50 years of age, I've never really not been involved with building layouts, this is the second big exhibition layout I've built on my own. I spent much of my teenage years learning with some large club layouts. You say that you've not had any real involvement in modelling since you were thirteen but as far as I'm aware you haven't told us how long ago that was.

 

If I was you, I would start with something much much simpler that you can get running in a short space of time, use it as a proving ground for your automation/interlocking etc. 

 

You will never get reliable running with long trains on set-track radius curves (or pointwork!) If you want long trains then you really need to be looking at Peco streamline pointwork at a minimum, and flexible track with MUCH gentler curves.

 

Andi

[DCB]

I 

 

The 30" minimum radius is still *very very* tight for what you propose, even if it isn't scenic. Your carriages will literally be dragged off the track at anything lower. 48" radius is much more reliable and looks decent enough if approached with transition curves and an organic flow.

 

I believe everyone has stated, with varying degrees of tact, that this layout is unworkable in its present form. Some have even suggested that it's ridiculous.

 

I won't be offering a dissent. It's essentially a 4x6' train set expanded to senseless proportions, and looks every bit as terrible as that description sounds. 

 

1) it's cramped. Why? You have such a nice space, don't build a layout that needs twice as much room. Right now it's dense and claustrophobic, and not in the good way.

2) it's oppressively angular. Why? Those long, straight platforms do the layout no favors. The storage yard is the most fluid and relaxed bit of track on the layout.

3) it has no sense of proportion. Why build 12' platforms for a room 24' long? My living room is 14' long, and I couldn't imagine how dull and boring it would be to have straight platforms for anything like that length. Besides, the storage yard tracks aren't even half as long.

 

The gradients are out of whack too. Gradients in general are the cause of much grief; many wide modellers avoid them entirely.

 

I hate to be such a downer, but I implore you to study existing layouts, sensibly sized ones, before proceeding with either the mainline terminus or the newly proposed one. My advice for a studying layouts is to look only at layouts that are smaller than what you plan to build. That way when you finally do put pencil to paper you're able to fit everything in.

 

Quentin

 I originally assumed this was N gauge so some of my earlier comments were basically nonsense.   If you want to go DCC  then you really need a level layout.  I can only get reasonable 7 coach trains up from lower to upper level on a similar size  24 X 8ft layout by removing tender pickups decoder sockets etc and packing locos with lead.   The layout has gradients around 1 in 33. to 1 in 36 which Hornby Dublo Wrenn Castes easily hauled 8 coach trains up, Triang Britannias pull about 15 and  Bachmann Tornado managed to slip to a halt with 6.  The gradient goes round a 19 " radius 120 degree bend but I never have issues with coaches derailing or being pulled off the track. Long wheelbase four wheelers can't get round as the rails twist so they rock diagonally and the flanges just ride clear of the rail head,   On the main line where the gradient is nearer 1 in 50 and the radius approaching 36" we run 3 X 8 coach rakes coupled together with a Wills 00 prairie at times and 60 wagon freights for a bit of fun with Wrenn 8Fs.

However the trains are matched so the 7 Mk1 or 8 57ft rakes can be got up the gradient by 5MT and above locos, the platforms, both at the terminus and the junction station hold that same length of train as do the hidden loops and the hidden sidings have 2ft long dead ends plus 8ft length  so trains can barrel in flat out and still stop in the available distance.  

It is little point having 12 coach platforms and only being able to run 8 coach trains because your fiddle yard can't cope with anything longer.   6ft or 8ft platforms look great with 2 or 4 coach trains as lets face it plenty of prototype stations were far too lavish for the service.

If you run RTR you should have one side scenic one side Fiddle.  If you run white metal Kit built locos then you can have both sides scenic with hidden sidings below like I do.

Edited February 23, 2018 by DavidCBroad

[jamespetts]

Thank you for your feedback: that is most helpful. As indicated previously, I plan to start with a smaller layout and re-consider a revised and probably simplified version of this concept when I have acquired experience from the smaller project. I have posted a draft track plan for the smaller project here. I should be grateful for feedback on that.

 

That Ravensclyffe layout is splendid, incidentally - thank you for sharing the link to that. May I ask what aspects of the construction of that layout that you found the most time consuming?

 

For the purposes of, in due course, reworking the basic idea behind the layout the plan for which I posted in the original post on this thread (i.e. a main line terminus station set in the 1930s preferably incorporating the London Underground that can be transformed to represent the 1900s/1910s by changing the stock and possibly easily removable scenic items such as road vehicles and that can take as close to realistic length trains that can fit in the space) into something less likely to cause difficulties, it is very helpful to know as precisely as those here are able to describe the constraints under which I will have to work not to encounter operational problems, and I am very grateful to those sharing their experience with curve radii and long trains. I am interested to note the issue with ballasting DCC fitted locomotives - can no ballast be added to these at all, or is it just that less ballast can fit? I imagine that Blu-tak would be workable ballast (albeit not as good as lead) to fit into tight spaces if all else fails.

 

As already noted, the sharp corners on the short sides can be slackened considerably by reducing the straight sections of track between them, but the difficulty (not just in the specific plan posted in the original thread, but with any layout on this general concept) is the turn-back loop in the fiddle yard. I incorporated this to avoid having to uncouple and turn locomotives in the fiddle yard so as to allow for automated operation, and on the lower level to allow representation of a train descending into Underground tunnels beyond the main station. The Underground sections would use only shorter trains, but the main fiddle yard would, on any layout on this general concept, use the full length trains. In considering a revised layout on this basic concept, I therefore need to understand whether: (1) a turnback loop in the Underground section; and (2) a turnback loop in the main fiddle yards is likely to be workable.

 

Incidentally, for reference, I do not think that the fiddle yard roads are too short to take 12 carriage trains. The reference carriage that I used to measure train length (the Hornby Gresley carriages) is 250mm over couplings, and the reference locomotive that I used for the same purpose (the Hornby A1/A3) is just under 300mm over couplers. 12 of these carriages plus one locomotive gives 3,300mm. Not taking into account the curvature (which, of course, would make it longer), at least two of the fiddle yard roads are >3,300mm. Not all trains would be this long, of course, and those that are <3,300mm are still quite substantial in length. The GWR locomotives and possibly carriages may well be shorter than this in any event. Bear in mind that the platforms need to be able to take the twelve carriages plus two locomotives in order to allow for the locomotive that hauled the train into the station in the first place, whereas this is not necessary in the fiddle yard (at least, if a turnback loop be used).

 

I am a little confused as to why a few of the commenters seem to think that I have used Settrack points on this plan, however. I have used only Streamline points, and, as I believe that I have already stated, in the scenic areas, all the points are large radius. Would it be helpful if I were to upload the actual SCARM file rather than just the graphic to allow people to see more clearly how the layout is put together?

 

In relation to gradients, I note that these are wont to cause difficulties, especially with longer trains. However, as I think that I have stated several times now, the plan was never to send long trains up or down the gradients, as the gradients were intended to be confined to those parts of the layout representing the London Underground. May I ask the extent to which such gradients cause issues for 5-6 carriage trains? This will help me to understand the extent to which I can incorporate gradients/a split level design for Underground trains in any future revised layout based on this general concept.

 

In relation to the shorter term goal, it would be extremely helpful if anyone could assist with the question of whether and to what extent it is workable to have two different layouts separated by height in a single space, as my plan is to build the 1980s N gauge layout at one level and then the revised 1930s OO gauge layout (in due course) on another level. My concerns about doing this are:

 

(1) that one of the two layouts might not be at a good viewing height;

(2) that the supports for the base boards of the higher level layout might get in the way of lower level layout;

(3) that access to the bottom of the higher level layout (for wiring) might be restricted by the lower level layout; and

(4) that the top of the lower level layout might be obscured by the higher level layout.

 

A possible solution to (1) is to have the lower level layout at sitting height and the higher level layout at standing height, but I am not sure about solutions to the other issues. I should be grateful if anyone is able to assist on those topics. Thank you again for all of your help so far.

[Harlequin]

Hi (from one insomniac to another!),

 

Turnback loops (or reversing loops) are usually difficult to incorporate in my experience because they take up a lot of space but they are very useful on layouts with terminus stations. You will probably have to use track that crosses the room if you want one with a reasonable radius (even for unseen fiddle yard areas) and that would mean either some lifting sections in your baseboard or you have to be willing to duck under the boards somewhere to reach the central operating well. You only really need a single track to form a reversing loop. All this is entirely doable and it leads to possible bigger changes: If you have one track that crosses the room then why not run others, and have the main running lines form a circuit around the room (possibly below the terminus level)? That is a pattern that C J Freezer used many times.

 

I think that SCARM output just makes a design look like it uses settrack because it encourages you to plug together fixed geometry components. The SCARM file might be useful to some but not all of us. (Could you avoid the compression artefacts by outputting as PNG?)

 

Another layout that might give you inspiration is "Crewlisle". It's creator/operator is an active member here and he may be able to offer you some advice.

Edited February 23, 2018 by Harlequin

[Siberian Snooper]

If you want two separate layouts, I would build each as a separate entity which utilise the same supports. When not using one it can be dismantled and stored whilst the other one  is being used. This can be achieved by building them in clip together sections and multi-pin D connectors, in the same manner as exhibition layouts. If you use plywood construction each individual board will be easily handled by you, if you build them at around 1200 x 600. In our club we use EM Gauge society dowels (available from Eileens Emporium https://eileensemporium.com/index.php?option=com_hikashop&ctrl=category&task=listing&cid=1112&name=patern-makers-dowels&Itemid=189) for alignment and toggle clips  http://www.wdsltd.co.uk/categories/86/toggle-clamps-latches/91/toggle-latches/   (the link is to show what they look like) for holding it together. It only takes a few minutes to get a layout up once the support structure is in place.

 

I have seen somewhere that a couple of small layouts were built on two levels one was at sit down and operate level and the other was at stand up and operate level. The level being at just below eye level. Both were/are constructed and maintained on a bench. It's no fun sorting out wiring problems on your back under a layout and less so as you get older, bin there and got the T shirt.

 

EDIT looks like you will have to copy and paste the link into your browser.

Edited February 23, 2018 by Siberian Snooper

[F-UnitMad]

If you want two separate layouts, I would build each as a separate entity which utilise the same supports. When not using one it can be dismantled and stored whilst the other one  is being used. 

Given the way this chap is thinking (i.e. massive boards full of track), stored where exactly..??  

 

In another shed, maybe.

 

Coat, hat. Gone already.... 

Edited February 23, 2018 by F-UnitMad