Yorkshire Steel

[Mike K]

Hello all,

I’ve been reading rmWeb as an interested party for about 12 months, but have just actually joined so as to be able to take part, rather than sitting on the touch line so to speak.  I did have a Hornby OO gauge train set (cannot call it a model railway really! It was just track!) when I was younger, all started by my Dad.  After drifting away from the modelling side, but still enjoy an active interest in the big railway, Im now the point where I shall hit the big 40 later this year, and decided that getting back into the hobby would be no bad thing!  I’m amazed how how much the prices have altered since my last foray tho!

 

I have acquired a couple of N gauge locomotives (Graham Farish Class 20 and 47) and a couple of 16-ton mineral wagons so far, second hand, which although both are DC I'm going to look at ‘chipping’ to DCC.  I decided i didnt want to start buying too much stock until I had the layout plans sorted out, but equally wanted a couple to try and see what I thought to it.  I have also been playing on a little test 3’x1’ test board with things like servos for point control and the like - it was all Peco solenoids in my day!  Having got some experience of them now, I’ve decided its time to sort a proper layout out.  

 

After reading a lot of the layout threads on here, I reached a few conclusions for the ‘must haves’:-

a) A mix of operational interest - so the ability to shunt wagons and watch trains pass by a location (although not a ‘roundy-roundy’, as seeing the same train go past two or three times ruins the illusion for me.

b) A decent sized fiddle yard that would allow numerous trains to be held waiting to come onto the layout, which also gives the ability to run to a timetable, or at least an operating schedule.

c) To be as realistic as possible for the South Yorkshire area in the mid 1980s, both in layout, train formations, operation etc. Including not necessarily full length trains, but decent length ones, to assist in creating the illusion, and the correct track spacing where possible, especially on main lines.

d) Follow the ‘less is more’ principals, so the railway is in a setting, not the scenery is pushed in around it.

e) Part containing a quadruple or double main line.  For my interest, I like the main line railway, and a single track route just does not achieve what I want.

f) After doodling for some weeks, I also realised that I would like to recreate an area of the railway, rather than a specific location, there by giving different views, and potentially different trains to be seen.

 

All of that, I realised, created quite a tall order.  The original list was about 10 entries, long but I took a serious look and paired down to what really was the ‘must haves’. Im fortunate in having a full floor-boarded and lit loft area that is some 18ft x 11ft in size, so I think that the above, especially in N gauge can be achieved.

 

After playing with a number of scenarios and locations, I got close, but not what I would call perfect.  So I took the two best ones, and ‘merged’ them, which involved changing the geography a little bit, but I think the realism remains.  I have therefore selected the Tinsley/Rotherham area as the setting for the layout. There is, of course, some concessions, and I’ve had to reduce the length of the sidings representing Tinsley Yard, while also removing what would have been Tinsley TMD!  Trackwork will be Peco Code 55, with points operated through micro-servos and the Megapoints system.  The plan is to use long points throughout, and the widest radius curves possible.

 

In reality the line from Rotherham Central station runs south to Shepcote Lane North Junction (the North Western entrance to the yard), while the route from Rotherham Masborough passes over the ‘Central’ line and heads to Treeton (the Eastern entrance to the yard) and onto Chesterfield.  I’ve amended this to ignore the Central line and have the Masborough Line heading to Shepcote Lane, while the Eastern end of the yard, I’ve ‘tweaked’ to be four track but still heading south to Chesterfield, but perhaps with more industrialised surroundings than the reality of countryside around Treeton.

 

The aim is that I can include both Rotherham Masborough and the Tinsley area in the layout, to achieve the above ‘six’ aims. The routes being on slightly different levels, separated by buildings and scenery.  For the fiddle yard, I have created a plan for 30 odd sidings under the main layout, linked by a ‘low level loop’ that connects all layout entrance/exit points and all of the sidings, which will allow loaded steel trains to pass Masborough southbound, and empty ones northbound for example.

 

 

The actual layout will be like a large figure ‘8’ design, with Tinsley Yard along the centre boards, which will be around 3ft wide - the outer boards all being 2ft wide.  I do accept this is a long-term layout, both in terms of track laying, scenery and rolling stock acquisition - most of which (especially wagons) I expect will be gathered from swap meets or second-hand dealers.  The idea is that the four track approach to Rotherham Masborough and the double-track route through Brightside will provide an opportunity for the models to ‘stretch-their-legs’ and give both loco-hauled intercity and inter-regional services, mixing with DMUs.  The old ‘GC’ route through Shepcote Lane (and through Tinsley Yard) will be primarily freight, with the odd Cleethorpes-Sheffield-Manchester passenger working with a ’31’ being routed via Shepcote Junctions and Carbrook en route to Sheffield Midland.  A slight ‘tweak’ to timetables should allow things like the Lackenby-Corby ‘tubeliner’ to be seen, routed via Shepcote Lane and the Yard bypass roads, before heading south, while steel, speedlink and coal traffic will predominate. 

 

I note that Dapol do an automatic style coupling, but a few people seem to have suggested that the Microtrains version is better? Does anyone have a view/experience?

 

I appreciate its ambitious, and a large project for one-man, but I didn’t want to go down the road of a smaller layout, that id invested time and money in for it not to provide the level of enjoyment that I wanted.  While its just me and my layout, I hope if I create Layout Topic for it once its off the ground and track is going down, that people may be interested in following its progress and ‘chipping in’ with ideas.

 

Hope I’ve not waffled on too much … Im currently trying to plan it all out in the SCARM computer software, and will post a plan for comments shortly, but any thoughts/views on the layout or my proposals would be welcome. 

 

Mike

[Mike K]

That’s some plan

Look forward to updates and progress

 

Brian

 

Thanks Brian,

 

After posting that I managed to get the Masborough track layout sorted, and have played about with Shepcote Lane Junctions.  I'll try and work out how to get the plan exported from SCARM over the next couple of days and post it on here.

 

Mike

[Mike K]

Afternoon all,

Im slightly surprised that 186 people have so far looked at the thread (thanks guys (or girls!)) but no comments, so i'll assume that what i've proposed and laid out sounds ok, and nobody can see any problems...

 

Im still learning SCARM but it seems quite good and easy - i've got the rough layout mapped out, although I am at 96 pieces of track, so will hit the 100 limit well before the full layout is mapped! Im thinking that actually once i've proven that everything fits that i may just crack on with the track-laying, so I'm not sure its worth me buying the full programme.  Im only doing the one layout so would it get used again?  I'll post the plan of what i have later today, it is very rough tho, and I am having some problems getting the track spacing correct, especially on curves.  Can anyone tell me what the track spacing in sidings should be - along with double track and quadruple track?

 

I assume Peco do not do a curved crossover at all in N gauge Code 55?  I was trying to get a double crossover (Down Slow->Down Fast, and Up Slow->Up Fast) at the northern end of Masborough station but ideally it needs to be on a curve, but thats looking unlikely I think   Im trying to keep all the curves in the scenic area to be four foot (48") radius or higher, most are coming out around 60" or 5-foot, so hopefully stock should glide round a smooth piece of track!

 

But the principal of doing a rough plan has worked, 95% of the above sketch can be accommodated without it looking cramped - the only change is the loss of Carbook Sidings, which i've removed because i felt the inclusion would look pushed in.  I had a feeling from the start that may be the case however - hence the provisional tag!  The good thing is that the triangular connection to the west end of Tinsley Yard will fit in, I am a little concerned about the gradient being a bit sharp and on a curve, but some testing will likely need to be carried out there.

 

I shall finish having a play about with the Yard design, and then hopefully push forward with the fiddle yards - because the main layout sits on top of the said yards, they will have to be laid, wired up and tested first, before any work can be done on the main layout.  Ive sat and given much though to the fiddle yard, because of the previously stated reason, its not something that can be changed or added to later.  Im thinking that each road needs to be around 6ft long to accommodate the longest trains, and with 18ft length to play with, current thinking is for two 10-12 road yards down each side, plus a couple of DMU sidings to represent the Barnsley branch, which heads off through a somewhat hidden junction between Brightside and Rotherham Masborough, will give around 50-52 fiddle roads, plus a handful of loco holding sidings. 

 

That should be amble to accommodate the variety of loco-hauled passenger (cross-country and Hull/Cleethorpes-Manchester workings), plus coal, intermodal, speedlink freights and trip workings, along with three or four HST sets and DMUs, in the fullness of time.  Two of the yards will have the sidings arranged so that a loco arriving with loaded HAAs for example, can detach run over the pointwork into the next yard and connect onto a rake of empty HAAs, ready to return from the same end of the layout at a later point.  Well I did say I wanted realism!

 

Mike

Edited April 17, 2018 by Mike K

[luckymucklebackit]

Hi Mike - My advice is when you are building a large ambitious plan such as you are proposing is to break it down into several smaller self contained projects than can be completed in a reasonable time, most people (myself included) underestimate the amount of time it takes to build a large layout, not to mention the costs, timber to build the boards, track, electrics and scenic materials all add up.  I had a house with a large loft about thirty years ago and set about planning to fill it. i did not have a plan how each stage was going to be completed and eventually ran out of cash and enthusiasm, result the layout never was finished and was eventually abandoned in favour of a smaller layout in the spare room.

That said, best of luck, I do like layouts with lots of operating potential, you can't beat playing trains after all!

 

Jim

[Satan's Goldfish]

I think we start getting more vocal when we see actual track plans rather just a rough outline of what's going where. I'd echo Jims comment though regarding breaking it down into smaller sections. Get something running then expand from there. break the scenery down into sections, complete one section before moving to the next, etc.

[Mike K]

Jim & SG,

Thanks for the comments.  Yes the same thoughts have occurred to me, but in some respects I hit two problems.  One is that I need to get the Hidden Sidings/Fiddle Yards right from the start because track alterations will be a no-go afterwards, and the second is that doing it in smaller sections could hit problems given the interconnection between lines at Shepcote Lane Junctions. That was one of the reasons that i decided to plan everything on the computer before laying a piece of track!  I think the main layout can be split into four sections, the main line through Masborough and Brightside stations, the old 'GC' route from Masborough to Nunnery Lane, the main line from Treeton/Chesterfield using the yard 'bypass' lines to Shepcote Lane Junctions & the 'GC' route and finally the yard area. Aside from the the fiddle yard, the yard area is likely to be the most expensive, in terms of trackwork, servos etc, so i think it makes sense to leave that till last.

 

But both of your comments are noted, and thanks for the input so far.

 

That said, best of luck, I do like layouts with lots of operating potential, you can't beat playing trains after all!

 

Jim

 

Couldnt agree more

 

Mike

Edited April 17, 2018 by Mike K

[Mike K]

Evening all,

Well i promised I would upload the SCARM plan - i did say it was rough .. certainly needs a lot of work and isnt perfect at the moment.  I've also hit the 100 track limit, so need to consider either buy the full version, or laying out the yard as a separate file.

 

 

Edit: I should add the layout is over three levels to split up the views. Level 0 is baseboard level (Fiddle Yard), Level 1 and Level 2 (Brightside & MML into Sheffield).  Rotherham Masborough station sits halfway between Level 1 and Level 2 (hence the 1.5 on the diagram) in order to reduce the climb out of the station on the MML line and the climb from Shepcote Lane on the GC route.

 

Mike

Edited April 17, 2018 by Mike K

[Zomboid]

Those curves on a gradient at the triangle look a bit ambitious - if you want to have an intersection bridge where it's shown they've got to climb about 3" in that distance. It'll probably limit your train lengths to shorter than a layout this size ought to support, if anything can get up them.

 

Only other thing I'll say is that this is a huge project, which will absorb a lot of time and money. So you've got to be sure that it'll do what you want. Do you know what your preferred activities are? Shunting? Watching the trains go by? Building structures? Building rolling stock? Whatever you like, make sure that your plan gives you that. And if you don't know yet, then find out before committing anything significant to wood...

[Mike K]

Those curves on a gradient at the triangle look a bit ambitious - if you want to have an intersection bridge where it's shown they've got to climb about 3" in that distance. It'll probably limit your train lengths to shorter than a layout this size ought to support, if anything can get up them.

 

Only other thing I'll say is that this is a huge project, which will absorb a lot of time and money. So you've got to be sure that it'll do what you want. Do you know what your preferred activities are? Shunting? Watching the trains go by? Building structures? Building rolling stock? Whatever you like, make sure that your plan gives you that. And if you don't know yet, then find out before committing anything significant to wood...

 

Hi Zombold,

Sorry dont know your name!  Yes i'd agree, I need to do a bit of testing with to establish what works and what doesn't in terms of curving gradients, but i am going to try setting the 'GC' line points further back both at Shepcote North Jn and Broughton Lane Jn, and try moving the Yard end junction up around 6-12 inches to give more more.   All the other grades should be fine as they are over a far longer length.

 

In terms of time and money, well yes.  But it is intended as a long-term project, but I do take your comments on board.  I enjoy a bit of shunting and at other times watching the trains go by, and do enjoy building structures, so part of the thought is that this layout doesn't limit me, it gives different opportunities, depending on what I want to do.  Its also possible to leave things running round while I'm doing scenery if required.  As for the cost, well once the fiddle yards are done, the rest can be done in stages, as somebody suggested previously.

 

Mike

[DCB]

I wonder how many mates you have to help operate this monster.  I often find myself operating single handed a layout intended for 3 operators, I can control 90% of it from any of 3 controllers and 100% from the other but it is a bit like being a one armed paper hanger and when I run out of ready use trains in 6 hidden sidings and 4 loops, and 4 or 5 sets of stock at the terminus there has to be a break in main line operations while I sort things out.

 

Its why my loft layout (00 smaller space than yours) was planned with a yard off a continuous run with hidden loops from which trains could emerge to run either clockwise or anticlockwise around the layout automatically while |I did some shunting.  It was too complicated and remains unfinished and unloved!

 

If you have gradient issues I would suggest you keep the track bed as thin as possible where the upper track crosses the lower, a piece of 1/16th or 1/8th steel saves a lot of height compared to a 3/4" chipboard even if it doesn't have 2" framing under it like some folks use especially in N where the vertical clearance for trains is so small.   With gradients get a very good (long) spirit level and always check it both ways round, builders think 1 in 100 is level and anything leveller is taking the "Rise" so check everything don't rely on the base being level if your gradients are down in the 1 in 100 range (My ruling grades are 1 in 14 outside and same thing applies).

[TonyMay]

There is something to be said I think for keeping things simple. The vast majority of the real world network is plain line.  A large double track loop in N gauge, with fiddle yard and a small station.

 

There isn't as much "operating potential" to a simple design, but if you don't have the human resources available then you can't utilise that potential anyway.  Arguably however there's much more "modelling potential".  You can have realistic distances between signalling, for example.  And there's more opportunities to model scenery.  And ultimately there's less wiring, less wiring to go wrong, and less to clean, all of which may cause you to lose interest.  

[Mike K]

Hi David,

Sorry for the delayed response.

 

I wonder how many mates you have to help operate this monster.  I often find myself operating single handed a layout intended for 3 operators, I can control 90% of it from any of 3 controllers and 100% from the other but it is a bit like being a one armed paper hanger and when I run out of ready use trains in 6 hidden sidings and 4 loops, and 4 or 5 sets of stock at the terminus there has to be a break in main line operations while I sort things out.

 

Its why my loft layout (00 smaller space than yours) was planned with a yard off a continuous run with hidden loops from which trains could emerge to run either clockwise or anticlockwise around the layout automatically while |I did some shunting.  It was too complicated and remains unfinished and unloved!

 

If you have gradient issues I would suggest you keep the track bed as thin as possible where the upper track crosses the lower, a piece of 1/16th or 1/8th steel saves a lot of height compared to a 3/4" chipboard even if it doesn't have 2" framing under it like some folks use especially in N where the vertical clearance for trains is so small.   With gradients get a very good (long) spirit level and always check it both ways round, builders think 1 in 100 is level and anything leveller is taking the "Rise" so check everything don't rely on the base being level if your gradients are down in the 1 in 100 range (My ruling grades are 1 in 14 outside and same thing applies).

 

It is just a 'one-man' show, but some of this will be computer controlled.  I have always preferred the 'signalman' approach to model railways, rather than 'the driver' so my plan, with some help from a mate to set it all up, is to let the computer control the trains (with the exception of shunting in the yard) leaving me to control the signalling.  I take your comment on board, but i think its achievable given some 'experience' (read playing!) with a friends layout that has elements of computer control set up the same way.

 

Thanks for the comment on the track bed and gradients.  I do need to do some experimenting with these things, especially in respect of the curves and grades around Shepcote Lane on the model.

 

There is something to be said I think for keeping things simple. The vast majority of the real world network is plain line.  A large double track loop in N gauge, with fiddle yard and a small station.

 

There isn't as much "operating potential" to a simple design, but if you don't have the human resources available then you can't utilise that potential anyway.  Arguably however there's much more "modelling potential".  You can have realistic distances between signalling, for example.  And there's more opportunities to model scenery.  And ultimately there's less wiring, less wiring to go wrong, and less to clean, all of which may cause you to lose interest.  

 

Hi Tony,

Thanks for your input, and yes, in the main I agree with your comments.  A lot of people I think from reading rmWeb and other forums/magazines, tend to think that computer control takes all the fun away  - and i think if its put in control to handle everything, I would probably agree.  My thought is to only let it handle part, and even then its automated according to manual actions (which I appreciate is a contradiction in terms!).  It does mean that there is more wiring however!  But I take your comments on board, food for thought as they say.

 

Mike

[Enterprisingwestern]

11 feet wide with 7 foot of baseboard doesn't leave a lot of space for access, I hope you're thin!

 

Mike.