Micro Track Plan Needed

[noctilux2]

Just unearthed a spare 3x1 baseboard & whilst I have trawled the web for suitable 00 gauge plans have been, other than "Capital Works", somewhat less than inspired.

 

Anyone got any good examples that will fit this micro space, & yes I am aware of Carl's site.

 

Thanks in advance.

[BG John]

Probably no help at all, but this is what I'm currently building in 7mm on a 4x1 baseboard plus fiddle yard. It's effectively two layouts in one, so may give you some ideas for something a bit different, even if "both" layouts are OO. The proportions would have to be different, as mine is a mix of standard and narrow gauge, but you've got more space than I have.

http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/101184-cheapside-yard-a-low-cost-7mm-micro-layout/

[rue_d_etropal]

With bigger layouts it is sometimes easier to start with a plan, but when space is tight, I recommend printing off some of the Peco templates, and possibly mine from my website. For some reason Peco do not have the OO setrack online, but some of my track is same geometry.

This way you can try things in different places and test clearances etc. Too easy to build a siding and find it too short when you start doing some serious operating.

[BG John]

With bigger layouts it is sometimes easier to start with a plan, but when space is tight, I recommend printing off some of the Peco templates, and possibly mine from my website. For some reason Peco do not have the OO setrack online, but some of my track is same geometry.

This way you can try things in different places and test clearances etc. Too easy to build a siding and find it too short when you start doing some serious operating.

I agree with that. I designed my layout using SCARM, but when I came to lay it out full size it wouldn't fit. So I had to start again using Peco templates, bits of track, and track drawn on computer and printed out. That's why I ended up with a full size mockup, complete with buildings, before I was happy with it.

[rue_d_etropal]

Peco were years ahead when they first introduced the templates. Granted it was possibly because of lack of computer tools to do the job and was as much about marketing, but in reality it is still the best way, or certainly the final step before committing to actual modelling. As far as I know no other track supplier has done something similar, and is one reason why I decided to do my templates(the designs come off same software used to design track in the first place, not a photo, which is what the Peco ones look like).

 

Still puzzled by lack of online templates for Peco OO setrack though. I had to design my own similar geometry from scratch(I am a mathematician so it was not too difficult).

[47137]

The Peco Streamline small radius wye point is very useful for micros, it actually takes up less space than the equivalent Setrack point. The Streamline small radius left and right points are useful too. I'm not keen on the Setrack points - I will admit to having two of them on my own layout, but I chose them for their geometry not their appearance. Streamline lets you have live frogs - they will run better, look better, you can have code 75 rail and the wiring is simple enough on a small layout.

 

If the layout is going to need a run-round loop in its 3 foot length, think about having a sector plate at one end. I think this is true regardless of the scale and gauge.

 

- Richard.

[rue_d_etropal]

I suspect the debate over code 75 versus code 100 and live versus dead frog will continue for many years. Personally code 75 is nice looking but unless you re-wheel on older stock can be a problem. As for frogs, modern models run a lot smoother than older ones, and dead gap is very very small now on Peco points, still long on other makes. Simplest way to improve performance is to wire up points so that they are not dependent on power going through blades, as is done for DCC layouts. It is a lot easier to insert isolators and switches where required.

There is an assumption by some in the hobby that code 75 and live frogs must be better, but it is not the only way, and does not always make things better.

[edcayton]

Can it have an additional fiddly bit, or does it have to be self-contained?

 

Ed

[BG John]

There's a small difference between the small radius Streamline and Setrack straight turnouts, as I have both. I got away with using a Streamline template for the Setrack one, but in any complicated layout it probably wouldn't work.

[edcayton]

Have a look at Portwey on here (search finds it) by Julian. I saw it at the Taunton members' day last year and was really impressed. Nice guy too.

 

Ed

[47137]

I suspect the debate over code 75 versus code 100 and live versus dead frog will continue for many years. Personally code 75 is nice looking but unless you re-wheel on older stock can be a problem. As for frogs, modern models run a lot smoother than older ones, and dead gap is very very small now on Peco points, still long on other makes. Simplest way to improve performance is to wire up points so that they are not dependent on power going through blades, as is done for DCC layouts. It is a lot easier to insert isolators and switches where required.

There is an assumption by some in the hobby that code 75 and live frogs must be better, but it is not the only way, and does not always make things better.

Hang on a minute.

 

The dead section on a Peco Setrack straight point is 13 mm long, and on a curved point it is 29 mm long. On a code 75 wye point, it's 5 mm long.

 

The real disadvantage of live frogs for this posting is Peco only make them in code 75, and 3-D printed inset track needs code 100. One less potential topic for free advertising. Sorry, but it's getting a bit obvious.

 

- Richard.

[rue_d_etropal]

First get facts correct, The plastic part of the frog on a Peco setrack point is 5.5mm, just measured it. That is not including gap in rails which has to there what ever type of frog it is. I would not use the curved point in a small layout, far too big. Second thing is my templates are free, and I am having advertising in BRM soon, hopefully next issue if they managed to sort it out.

I have been a member of a couple of local clubs, both with finescale layouts. First opted to use Peco code 75 because they had just brought out their single slip. We are not talking small layouts, but too big for most homes. Not only did this complicate the electrics, but we had to be careful what we ran. Even clearance under some stock meant it only just got over some bits. The club I am now with has an old OO layout with handbuilt finescale track. It looks good, and because of some of the standards 30 years ago, some older stuff will still run (no chairs visible). In fact we have more problems with new stuff, due to incorrect back to backs. Now the electrics are , well you don't want to go there. We don't allow points to be changed, so it only really runs as a 4 track tail chaser. Anyone found changing points, is likely to be strung up, as it takes ages to fix things. That is not taking into account rail expansion.

One thing both these layouts have in common, is that they are(were) both OO, so both are under gauge. However much fiddling and that is still the case.

 

For a small micro layout, there is the opportunity to actually fit quite a lot of track in the space, with complex pointwork. That might mean handbuilt track, but Peco points are pretty robust and can be cut up and still work. The Peco small Y point is superb, but I have had problems years ago when I did not fit connecting tracks properly(ie slight kinks at joints). Atlas do a nice range of small crossings, various angles. Pity dead frogs on these are longer, but decent locos will run on them.

 

If finescale and live frogs were so much better, then I am sure there would be a mass switch over from manufacturers, but that has not been the case and is unlikely to happen.Even in USA code 100 is still battling with code 83. I did read a while back that the Peco code 83 flexi track could be fragile as the chairs were so small. In fact I have suggested it elsewhere, and that is r2r EM gauge track would have bigger commercial potential, as it is also close to 5ft 3in for HO scale.

 

Not a plug, just a statement, my O gauge inset track uses code 100 rail, so might be considered fine scale for O gauge.Lima used code 100 for their O gauge, and in some ways it could look better than Peco O gauge track.  I did consider doing something for code 75 for OO, but it would have meant even more work and maintenance. Someone has found they think they can use code 75 on my track. If it works, then fine, but it is not something I would say would work for everyone. As some of the rail is hidden I don't think it really makes that much difference, looks wise, but the lost 0.6mm, could stop some models running properly. All depends on what you plan to run.

 

9 times out of 10 times, when I see problems on layouts at exhibitions it is live frogs and possibly hand built track, DCC comes a close second . I have been exhibiting layouts for many years, and have had articles published in magazines, and as I said am a member of local club. We don't do a club exhibition now as we don't have enough fit people, but at least I am trying to put something back into the hobby. My 3D printing operation started because I wanted something I could not get elsewhere, and like others I made it available to others.

I have also worked on other side of the counter, when I was trying to run a model shop. That gave me a good insight on the business and some of the reasons there are far fewer shops now than 20 years ago.  I have also observed a lot of small hobby businesses disappear, partly through retirement of the owners, or through sickness. Not uncommon to see at this time of year, notices to say closed for holiday, no more orders can be taken till next month.

It does seem that those who try to help this hobby, get cut down, but often people want things better but are not prepared to pay the higher prices.

[ELTEL]

First get facts correct, The plastic part of the frog on a Peco setrack point is 5.5mm, just measured it. That is not including gap in rails which has to there what ever type of frog it is. I would not use the curved point in a small layout, far too big. Second thing is my templates are free, and I am having advertising in BRM soon, hopefully next issue if they managed to sort it out.

I have been a member of a couple of local clubs, both with finescale layouts. First opted to use Peco code 75 because they had just brought out their single slip. We are not talking small layouts, but too big for most homes. Not only did this complicate the electrics, but we had to be careful what we ran. Even clearance under some stock meant it only just got over some bits. The club I am now with has an old OO layout with handbuilt finescale track. It looks good, and because of some of the standards 30 years ago, some older stuff will still run (no chairs visible). In fact we have more problems with new stuff, due to incorrect back to backs. Now the electrics are , well you don't want to go there. We don't allow points to be changed, so it only really runs as a 4 track tail chaser. Anyone found changing points, is likely to be strung up, as it takes ages to fix things. That is not taking into account rail expansion.

One thing both these layouts have in common, is that they are(were) both OO, so both are under gauge. However much fiddling and that is still the case.

 

For a small micro layout, there is the opportunity to actually fit quite a lot of track in the space, with complex pointwork. That might mean handbuilt track, but Peco points are pretty robust and can be cut up and still work. The Peco small Y point is superb, but I have had problems years ago when I did not fit connecting tracks properly(ie slight kinks at joints). Atlas do a nice range of small crossings, various angles. Pity dead frogs on these are longer, but decent locos will run on them.

 

If finescale and live frogs were so much better, then I am sure there would be a mass switch over from manufacturers, but that has not been the case and is unlikely to happen.Even in USA code 100 is still battling with code 83. I did read a while back that the Peco code 83 flexi track could be fragile as the chairs were so small. In fact I have suggested it elsewhere, and that is r2r EM gauge track would have bigger commercial potential, as it is also close to 5ft 3in for HO scale.

 

Not a plug, just a statement, my O gauge inset track uses code 100 rail, so might be considered fine scale for O gauge.Lima used code 100 for their O gauge, and in some ways it could look better than Peco O gauge track.  I did consider doing something for code 75 for OO, but it would have meant even more work and maintenance. Someone has found they think they can use code 75 on my track. If it works, then fine, but it is not something I would say would work for everyone. As some of the rail is hidden I don't think it really makes that much difference, looks wise, but the lost 0.6mm, could stop some models running properly. All depends on what you plan to run.

 

9 times out of 10 times, when I see problems on layouts at exhibitions it is live frogs and possibly hand built track, DCC comes a close second . I have been exhibiting layouts for many years, and have had articles published in magazines, and as I said am a member of local club. We don't do a club exhibition now as we don't have enough fit people, but at least I am trying to put something back into the hobby. My 3D printing operation started because I wanted something I could not get elsewhere, and like others I made it available to others.

I have also worked on other side of the counter, when I was trying to run a model shop. That gave me a good insight on the business and some of the reasons there are far fewer shops now than 20 years ago.  I have also observed a lot of small hobby businesses disappear, partly through retirement of the owners, or through sickness. Not uncommon to see at this time of year, notices to say closed for holiday, no more orders can be taken till next month.

It does seem that those who try to help this hobby, get cut down, but often people want things better but are not prepared to pay the higher prices.

We should charge this guy advertising rates.

 

Sorry I do not agree regarding scale track our ex club layout and hand built track built in 1989 and was exhibited right up till the end of 2013 and won the best in 00 layout at Warley in 2007 and only the occasional mishap

 

I have used scale track and PECO code 75 & 100 and have a place in today's modelling

 

Eltel

[edcayton]

wtf?

 

Ed

[47137]

wtf?

 

Ed

An OP asks a straightforward question with the possibility of using code 100 rail

A modeller describes his layout

Someone mentions 'quayside'

and a tailor-made advert pops up

 

I've made 600+ posts on the rmweb, and this thread has my first driven just about entirely by negative thoughts. I've had enough.

 

Sorry to the OP. A good micro track plan can let you try a new scale or gauge, or make a diversion from another project, or perhaps build a scenic test track. Or perhaps use up some old track in a new setting. For exhibition use, look to engage the viewer; the track plan is largely irrelevant. Above all, do what feels worthwhile.

 

- Richard.

[d&h]

Just unearthed a spare 3x1 baseboard & whilst I have trawled the web for suitable 00 gauge plans have been, other than "Capital Works", somewhat less than inspired.

 

Anyone got any good examples that will fit this micro space, & yes I am aware of Carl's site.

 

Thanks in advance.

Have you considered looking at this from the other end, by this I mean the location and what will be the focal point, which I think can be very important in a small layout.

As I have limited modelling skills most of my models are RTR so I would look at: 

• the local geography/area
• type of engine important for run rounds/siding lengths 
• rolling stock (those new grain hopper look good)
• Buildings some of the resin buildings are very good and tempting

The track plan could be designed to fit what you have or what to hope to make or purchase.

 

D&H

[rue_d_etropal]

Eltel,

you might know the layout we have at club, as it was built in the early 80s and featured in Railway Modeller when original club had it. It is Marsden, and is superb to look at, but as I said, if you mess with the electrics then you can expect problems. It has won many awards at shows, but we simply don't have the people to take it to shows now. It really needs a full clean up and possibly should be in some sort of local museum. It also shows that a 4 track mainline is a very good exhibition design as you can have something moving all of the time.

I have seen far too many superb layouts at exhibitions, but very little moving on them. This is quite often down to electrical bugs, or simply timetable running, and therefore not very entertaining. Often there are quite a large crowd of operator behind the layout, most of which are doing nothing, but still costing the exhibition money.

 

As for comment about advertising, I have probably put a lot more time and effort into promoting the hobby than many who grumble about the state of the hobby. I have my own website, which is paid for, not a freeby. I do use free webspace, mainly email(who would pay for it anyway), but there have been many problems with free webspace(photos!!!), and many many grumbles. Better to pay a small fee and get a more reliable service. 

3D printing has been a fascinating project, but some seem to prefer to ignore it. I remember David Boyle(Dapol) complaining there was not enough action things on British models, like there used to be in old Triang Hornby days, and still in USA. Granted some will say they are more toy like, but the fun element should not be ignored. DCC sound has added something, but sometimes simple ideas add a lot of interest.

I came across Carl's first layout(well first one public anyway) many years ago. I was not interested in Gn15 then, it had not been defined properly, but I did join the Gnatterbox forum later, where people are encouraged to promote anything they produce. I followed Carl's  website over the years, and Carl included some of my layouts . I was one of the first to try out the Ikea APA box, with first exhibition exactly one year after we lost Carl. I love building small (micro) layouts in many different scales and gauges and trying out new ideas and challenges. From what I have leaned, I want to help others , and will point out where potential problems are. I am no salesman, as I am not purely interested in the selling, and leaving it up to someone else to sort out when it goes wrong.

 

When I used to work in IT , some did not like my attitude, thought it as too negative, but I have found that if you don't promise the world, but then actually deliver it, people actually prefer it to when everything is promised but not delivered.

I think that if you compared this hobby with many others, you would find it far more positive and welcoming. It must be commercially viable, given the number of magazines devoted to British railway modelling.

[SMR CHRIS]

Back on topic people Small Layout plan / ideas was the request, for the one who have forgotten and gone off to some other place

 

I know it's a little time consuming " noctilux2 " but it is worth trawling through a few of the topics that go back a way here some quite unique plans and idea's.

Whilst not the size your board is have a look at the 3 layouts in this thread http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/5331-drewry-lane-shelfe-street/for Drewry lane and others layouts created by Stu

The three layouts show what can be done detail wise within a small space in a relatively quick build period so you could do some compression use smaller points fold out staging/fiddle yard etc. and come up with a plan that will suit your needs.

One tip I can give is to get a loco and some stock and place on the board and get an idea of the limitations of the space with some models on hand, then with this in mind you can get a better feel of what you will fit in the space.

Whilst 3x1 sounds small a little creative track work and clever scenic effects and you could have some modelling fun in no time.

http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/5331-drewry-lane-shelfe-street/

[Lisa]

Have you concidered the Portway model, http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/81305-portwey/?

 

Lisa

[rodshaw]

How about something like this - my own idea (not as yet completed) for a 3mm scale micro layout on a board 34in. by 14in., with some industry and a high-level passenger shuttle. Only 2 turnouts, could easily be adapted for 00.

 

http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/64957-lowmoor-hill/

[ELTEL]

Eltel,

you might know the layout we have at club, as it was built in the early 80s and featured in Railway Modeller when original club had it. It is Marsden, and is superb to look at, but as I said, if you mess with the electrics then you can expect problems. It has won many awards at shows, but we simply don't have the people to take it to shows now. It really needs a full clean up and possibly should be in some sort of local museum. It also shows that a 4 track mainline is a very good exhibition design as you can have something moving all of the time.

I have seen far too many superb layouts at exhibitions, but very little moving on them. This is quite often down to electrical bugs, or simply timetable running, and therefore not very entertaining. Often there are quite a large crowd of operator behind the layout, most of which are doing nothing, but still costing the exhibition money.

 

As for comment about advertising, I have probably put a lot more time and effort into promoting the hobby than many who grumble about the state of the hobby. I have my own website, which is paid for, not a freeby. I do use free webspace, mainly email(who would pay for it anyway), but there have been many problems with free webspace(photos!!!), and many many grumbles. Better to pay a small fee and get a more reliable service. 

3D printing has been a fascinating project, but some seem to prefer to ignore it. I remember David Boyle(Dapol) complaining there was not enough action things on British models, like there used to be in old Triang Hornby days, and still in USA. Granted some will say they are more toy like, but the fun element should not be ignored. DCC sound has added something, but sometimes simple ideas add a lot of interest.

I came across Carl's first layout(well first one public anyway) many years ago. I was not interested in Gn15 then, it had not been defined properly, but I did join the Gnatterbox forum later, where people are encouraged to promote anything they produce. I followed Carl's  website over the years, and Carl included some of my layouts . I was one of the first to try out the Ikea APA box, with first exhibition exactly one year after we lost Carl. I love building small (micro) layouts in many different scales and gauges and trying out new ideas and challenges. From what I have leaned, I want to help others , and will point out where potential problems are. I am no salesman, as I am not purely interested in the selling, and leaving it up to someone else to sort out when it goes wrong.

 

When I used to work in IT , some did not like my attitude, thought it as too negative, but I have found that if you don't promise the world, but then actually deliver it, people actually prefer it to when everything is promised but not delivered.

I think that if you compared this hobby with many others, you would find it far more positive and welcoming. It must be commercially viable, given the number of magazines devoted to British railway modelling.

I can not see what any of the above has to do with micro layouts and the builders decision to use what track he/she wishes to use.

End off

Looking forward to positive comments and help A design of a micro layout

Eltel

[edcayton]

Have you concidered the Portway model, http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/81305-portwey/?

 

Lisa

 

Indeed. See post #10.

 

Ed

[Bungus the Fogeyman]

My ' Canons Lane Scrapyard' has been laughed at by all and sundry from Minehead to March....even complemented by the 'Warren Lane' gang ( see the thread for Sudbury exhibition 2011 if you must!!) . Its all of 2ft 9inches long, has 2 points and can keep me occupied at an exhibition all day....any use?

 

Disgusting of Market Harborough

[AMJ]

My Inglenook is built on a piece of plywood about 3' by 18" 3 points and to upset some I use DCC for a single loco operation.  Sounds like overkill to use DCC but logic dictates it's use as the locos live on my main layout.

 

The Inglenook is a shortened version of the normal plan.  The long siding can hold 4 wagons, the head shunt 2 wagons and a loco.

 

One year I exhibited it at the Middleton Railway show.  A couple of our drivers said to me that is simple!  I said to a few of them ok then have a try.  I generate the order for the wagons using a web page I devised it normally runs on the laptop running IIS and I added a copy onto http://www.amjohnson.co.uk/inglenook/One driver started to pull all 4 wagons from the long siding into the head shunt pointed to the wagon furthest from the loco saying I want that one he released to get it out you need to shunt everything.

 

I have been crafty as I can use OO stock or O:16.5 

[F-UnitMad]

Have you concidered the Portway model, http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/81305-portwey/?

 

Lisa

Careful with the spelling!! "Portwey" with an E is Julian's layout and the one recommended for this Thread. "Portway" with an A might throw up my own "Portway Center" American O Scale layout, which although small by O Scale standards isn't exactly Micro, & although it's an Inglenook plan I suspect the OP doesn't find that plan inspirational enough?