Jump to content

puffingbilly51

Members
  • Content Count

    14
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

6 Neutral
  1. Had another go at track design. Not too sure about top two 'wings'. Basically, (each grid equals one foot), top 6' x 2' is off scene and loop will hold a train going in opposite directions. Just to add a bit more interest, (bottom right), I've added a short siding, loco stabling with coal stage, or industrial siding, the line disappearing into factory (dairy). I have completed base boards (2 @ 6' x 2'), still have legs to do for boards, not quite sure how to approach these.
  2. Just had a look through catalogue of the kits. Must say they do look good, but my goodness what a price!
  3. I have attached a revised plan of my layout. Some changes as you will note from the original plan. As I have previously mentioned this is a test and learn project. I've enlarged the bottom loop to allow island platform and added an extra siding for added play value. The top 6x2' section, I have removed loop. Originally this was going to be off-scene. Will now make this open frame construction and have a small viaduct or bridge traversing a valley. Track, as I have previously mentioned is Peco. It will be a combination of Setrack and Streamline, code 100. I have all the wood now to hand and hav
  4. Again, thanks guys, plenty to think about here. Space is tight, and I do have a bit more room if I was going end to end, probably 8 x 2 feet scenic, with an extra 18" to 2' for a fiddle configuration, but would still have to be taken up and down on a regular basis. I'm looking at building this layout as a tester and learning curve, (joke); hopefully from this project I can move on to bigger and better things. I have a spare room (kids flown the nest), which I could utilise; that is my ultimate goal. Even like, (when I have learned to run), the idea of open framework, would love to
  5. Keith, thanks for taking the time to answer my queries, you have made some valid points. First your comparison of Setrack rails, certainly looks more realistic on the left, which I think you have made a very commendable job. This allays my fear of code 100 looking too toy-ish and I would be quite happy with that if I could meet your standard. Have read else where also to use n gauge ballast on 00, as this size is more realistic. 1. Have thought about dust issue, having cleared under bed in preparation for the layout, did notice quite an accumulation of dust. Thinking a
  6. I have a further question, can I mix Setrack with Streamline code 100? I would prefer, if possible to use the larger radii points from Streamline if possible. If not then I will have another rethink.
  7. Thanks Flying Pig for your input. Yes, the more I think about it, then I'll just accept, and go for Setrack. As I have mentioned before this is my first serious go at a layout. It will be a learning curve for me, and I hope if successful enough, bigger things for the future. My modelling skills are quite good, so no problems with scenery, buildings and modifying rtr locos and rolling stock. My carpentry skills are adequate, so shouldn't be too bad in constructing boards, (I have purchased most of the wood for frames and top). Track laying will be a first to me, and electrics, I don't
  8. Thanks guys for your useful advice. Yes, you caught me out, (well observed), using set-track radii for layout and totally agree with your views. I would like to use Streamline code 75, and I guess if I use this, then a few compromises will be needed. Will have a re-think here, but I would like to try and keep the spirit of this layout workable. I know my two, 6x2 feet sections are on the large size, but the layout, which will go underneath my double bed, hopefully will be lifted out and turned at 90 degrees to sit above it with end on legs. I will also have easy access from three sides o
  9. This is a track design I have come up with. My first layout, therefore I have kept it fairly simple. Gauge is 00, using Peco Streamline, code 75, electrofrog, DCC wired. Size is 6 x 4 feet, Two boards of 6 x 2 feet joined on the horizontal. Station is bottom of layout with an island platform and a couple of sidings. I have not mastered 'AnyRail', so the curved single rail towards top running from edge to edge of layout is supposed to represent scenic break. The top loop is for running a couple of trains in opposite directions, maybe a short freight hauled by a pannier, and the other a 14xx wit
  10. Thanks again fellas for a wonderful array of suggestions and examples. As previously mentioned I'm considering a foot crossing off level crossing, directly at the end of platform. Also like the idea of steps down from a road overbridge, also acting as scenic break.
  11. The station I have planned is of a similar size to St. Agnes. Liking the idea of foot (barrow) crossing at one end of the platform. Could also be a foot access to the small yard, which will have a couple of sidings. Would there be a warning sign to passengers at this crossing either exiting platform or accessing it?
  12. Thanks chaps for replies so far. Would have preferred the easy option of a subway, and I know I could use rule 1, but I do want to try and capture some sort of realism. Will look into this more and I will study information and advice kindly given so far.
  13. I am in the process of planning a roundy style layout. This will be my first, so I'm keeping it simple. It will be a Western Region single line branch, with an island platform, line diverging into a passing loop each side, and a couple of sidings. Not sure how passengers would access platform, either by a footbridge, off a road bridge or even a subway. Did GWR build subways for a small country station? Would appreciate any suggestions and views please. Gauge will be 00, with 75 code Peco rail.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.