Learning Layout - Era 5 Diesels & DMUs

[David04]

I'm planning a first layout and would appreciate any guidance you can offer.

The purpose of the layout is to give me something to learn on, something to have trains running on as soon as possible, something to prove to myself that I'm going to stick with the hobby, and something to do while I build up my stock collection for something larger. I've flip-flopped through many prototypes and scales (the choice available when one is starting out seems near infinite) but the one that's drawn me back time and time again has been diesels and DMUs in the early 1960s, somewhere in the Midlands. My chosen scale is OO. I had originally planned on TOPS-era BR Blue, the trains of my childhood, but there's something about BR Green diesels pulling rakes of maroon coaches that I find irresistible. What's more, my chosen era allows me to purchase the occasional steam or pre-TOPS BR Blue loco should I wish. I've decided that my first layout will be a Minories-like passenger terminus served by DMUs, some parcel traffic, and eventually, loco hauled passenger services. Control of the locos will be DCC and I intend to add sound as funds allow. Point motors will be Tortoise and be controlled by CBUS, as will the signals.

 

Dictated by the size of panels available in my local hardware store, the layout will be 40cm deep, and some multiple of 40cm long. Here's what I've come up with so far:

 

This is two versions of the same layout stacked one on top of the other while I try out ideas. The second version adds a departure track to Platform 1 to avoid the reverse curve. All trackwork is Peco code 75. All points are medium radius. The grid is 40cm squares. The layout will extend further to the left and terminate in a fiddle yard.

I've rotated each plan in an effort to avoid having all the tracks running parallel to the board edges but both designs feel rigid and not particularly prototypical. I also need to find space for the station pilot. In the first version of the plan, I'd probably replace the curve underneath the single slip with a left turnout and have it live on a short siding beneath the double slip. In the second version, it's not so obvious.

[PjKing1]

You can't beat green diesels mate with the odd splash of early br blue!! I'm not the man to help with track plans as it took me years to decide so I'll leave that for the more intelligent on here

 

Looking forward to seeing how you get on David.

 

Cheers

[David04]

So as I said before, I wasn't happy with either of my plans. They felt rigid and not at all prototypical so I've reverted to a more conventional Minories design which feels much better in both respects. Again, I have two versions: one with a conventional fiddle yard and one with a traverser.

 

Fiddle yard:

 

 

Traverser:

 

 

Both designs will incorporate an overbridge to disguise the entry to the storage tracks.

 

In order to keep all but one of the turnouts on one board and keep the storage tracks to a useful length, the fiddle yard version uses small radius points. However, this version has the advantage that I can conceal the fiddle yard underneath an industry and, should I wish, extend the small goods yard (currently no more than a row of coal staithes) into the space in front of it. The downside is that, as currently drawn, each of the main lines only has access to half of the storage tracks and to "fix" that would reduce the length of the storage tracks to the point that they were too short.

The traverser version has ample storage but restricts the scenic area to the first two boards but does also have the advantage that I've been able to use medium radius points. This has had the effect or reducing platforms three and four in length but not by so much that it matters. Perversely, platforms one and two have grown by a similar amount.

 

I think, having just typed all that, that the best of both worlds might be to use train-length cassettes.

 

I'd be grateful to hear any comments you might have about any aspects of the design.

[Happy Hippo]

The top plan is not really going to work with storage sidings like that as half your trains will arrive 'wrong line'.

 

If your entry/exit tracks are close to a wall when the railway is erected then the traverser is not going to work. (Don't ask me how I know!)

[Moxy]

So as I said before, I wasn't happy with either of my plans. They felt rigid and not at all prototypical so I've reverted to a more conventional Minories design which feels much better in both respects. Again, I have two versions: one with a conventional fiddle yard and one with a traverser.

 

Fiddle yard:

 

 

Traverser:

 

 

Both designs will incorporate an overbridge to disguise the entry to the storage tracks.

 

The downside is that, as currently drawn, each of the main lines only has access to half of the storage tracks and to "fix" that would reduce the length of the storage tracks to the point that they were too short.

 

I think, having just typed all that, that the best of both worlds might be to use train-length cassettes.

 

I'd be grateful to hear any comments you might have about any aspects of the design.

 

That looks like a perfectly workable Minories design to me, as far as I can see you can drive a train from any one of the 4 platform roads into any one of the fiddle yard roads.  Granted you might have to run 'wrong line' round the loop if you are coming out of the upper platform into either of the lower 2 fiddle yard tracks, but if you signal both lines as bi-directional (or assume they are so signalled) it will be fine.

 

I would avoid any cassettes that you can't comfortably hold in one hand, and don't forget all the weight (the loco) will be at one end, unbalancing the cassette and causing the train to fall out. (Ask me how I know this!)

 

Regards

 

Moxy

[Zunnan]

The traverser will give more capacity, but the position of the track leaving the layout limits what the traverser can do. If you mirror the trackplan so that the lines exit to the front of the layout you'll give the traverser a bit more space. Cassettes would work as well, but as noted longer cassettes have their issues, so if going this route a mirrored layout would again give more room to shuffle stuff back before needing to start lifting out.

[Kelly]

Looking at your plans, out of the two you suggest, the traverser is best perhaps. But it has as you've stated some flaws (extra spaace etc).

 

For my own layout I'm looking at cassettes as I'm mostly going to be working with 2 and 4 car units so the cassettes can form storage boxes if I plan it right for the units, though 4ft long cassettes might prove unweildy so I might go with 2ft max and join them together.

[Clive Mortimore]

I'm planning a first layout and would appreciate any guidance you can offer.

 

The purpose of the layout is to give me something to learn on, something to have trains running on as soon as possible, something to prove to myself that I'm going to stick with the hobby, and something to do while I build up my stock collection for something larger. I've flip-flopped through many prototypes and scales (the choice available when one is starting out seems near infinite) but the one that's drawn me back time and time again has been diesels and DMUs in the early 1960s, somewhere in the Midlands. My chosen scale is OO. I had originally planned on TOPS-era BR Blue, the trains of my childhood, but there's something about BR Green diesels pulling rakes of maroon coaches that I find irresistible. What's more, my chosen era allows me to purchase the occasional steam or pre-TOPS BR Blue loco should I wish. I've decided that my first layout will be a Minories-like passenger terminus served by DMUs, some parcel traffic, and eventually, loco hauled passenger services. Control of the locos will be DCC and I intend to add sound as funds allow. Point motors will be Tortoise and be controlled by CBUS, as will the signals.

 

Dictated by the size of panels available in my local hardware store, the layout will be 40cm deep, and some multiple of 40cm long. Here's what I've come up with so far:

 

 

This is two versions of the same layout stacked one on top of the other while I try out ideas. The second version adds a departure track to Platform 1 to avoid the reverse curve. All trackwork is Peco code 75. All points are medium radius. The grid is 40cm squares. The layout will extend further to the left and terminate in a fiddle yard.

I've rotated each plan in an effort to avoid having all the tracks running parallel to the board edges but both designs feel rigid and not particularly prototypical. I also need to find space for the station pilot. In the first version of the plan, I'd probably replace the curve underneath the single slip with a left turnout and have it live on a short siding beneath the double slip. In the second version, it's not so obvious.

Hi David

 

I like the top plan, but I can understand why you feel in could be restrictive for you.

 

With Sheffield Exchange I use a traverser, when designing the layout I planned for the mainline to end up in the middle of the first/last scenic board so that the traverser would not be offset. It still needs an area of 4 square feet. It over hangs by 1 foot when using the outside tracks.

 

I am looking forward to seeing how this develops. You cannot go wrong with green diesels in my opinion.

[Dave47549]

.

[David04]

Thanks for your comments everyone. I've been mulling them over and I've not made a lot of progress to be honest but we're getting there. Here's where I am:

 

 

Collectively, you've convinced me to dump cassettes which is good because I didn't want to go that way anyway. Initially, I didn't like the idea of flipping the layout; I had preconceived ideas about front and back and couldn't grok the layout reversed but once I tried it, I liked it so here we are. Forcing me to consider issues of front and back was also useful because the initial design was clearly intended for exhibition which is not my intention so now I have a design where the viewer and operator stand on the same side.

I do have a few issues with the design as it stands. For one thing, the loco spur now sits uncomfortably close to the baseboard edge and all of my transition curves are alarmingly tight (at the ends, they're as tight as eight inch radius) so that needs working on.

The bigger issue is that I feel I've drifted rather far from my original goal, that of building a starter layout on which to learn. A twelve foot layout with a seven track traverser does seem a little over the top for someone whose sum total of model railway resources is a two car DMU, an entry level DCC controller and an oval of Hornby track.

[BG John]

As I understand it, a mirror image of Minories doesn't work, but don't ask me to explain why! Do you need a seven track traverser, when the fiddle yard with points only had four tracks? A four track traverser wouldn't need to travel so far.

[MartynJPearson]

With regards to the loco spur, I'm assuming that a platform means that it can't follow the curve of the line into the platform so avoid getting close to the edge of the board? Another alternative might be to have a R/H turnout immediately after the bottom left R/H turnout, so that the "straight" takes you to the spur and the "curve" takes you to the platform. That would result in the spur being further back from the platform, and parallel to the edge.

[David04]

As I understand it, a mirror image of Minories doesn't work, but don't ask me to explain why! Do you need a seven track traverser, when the fiddle yard with points only had four tracks? A four track traverser wouldn't need to travel so far.

 

Now you mention it, the flipped version reverses the direction of the two crossovers with respect to "up" and "down." That might cause problems with simultaneous arrivals/departures I guess although I don't myself see the new design as any more restrictive, just differently restrictive. If there's something I'm not seeing, I could always rotate the layout instead of flipping it.

 

There's no real need for a seven track traverser but if I figured that if I was going to dedicate one of the boards to a traverser, I figured I might as well go all in. The original design of four tracks was chosen only because that was all I could manage without compromising the length of the tracks with more turnouts. Neither four nor seven were selected according to need as I don't yet have a working timetable; something I fear I may regret if I commit to a design before deciding on one.

 

With regards to the loco spur, I'm assuming that a platform means that it can't follow the curve of the line into the platform so avoid getting close to the edge of the board? Another alternative might be to have a R/H turnout immediately after the bottom left R/H turnout, so that the "straight" takes you to the spur and the "curve" takes you to the platform. That would result in the spur being further back from the platform, and parallel to the edge.

 

There's no real reason for the spur being shaped as it is other than Minories tradition. Either of your suggestions would work. I just need to choose one that I like the aesthetics of.

[woodenhead]

I might be inclined to swap the point above the point to the loco spur with a double slip and put the spur there.

 

Using the double slip will retain all the current routes, put the loco spur in the middle of the layout instead of the edge and allow all lines to access the spur in a single move.

 

In your chosen period, single and double slips were very common so not out of place.

[Kelly]

You could have perhaps an edge of building or wall to give some edge protection for the spur?

 

Remember too, that planning is a big part of the learning curve, as I'm finding drawing templates for my layout in templot atm. Making mistakes is often the best way to learn, though keeping them from being expensive mistakes is sometimes a battle. Plenty of good books on layout planning, and all of the railway magazines have done various articles on the subject.

 

As to how big a traverser you need, whilst you might only have one DMU, it is doubtful you'l just stick with that, so figure out how much stock you expect to have and make it as big, probably better to built it once than find you haven't enough space.

[aac]

Now you mention it, the flipped version reverses the direction of the two crossovers with respect to "up" and "down." That might cause problems with simultaneous arrivals/departures I guess although I don't myself see the new design as any more restrictive, just differently restrictive. If there's something I'm not seeing, I could always rotate the layout instead of flipping it.

 

There's no real need for a seven track traverser but if I figured that if I was going to dedicate one of the boards to a traverser, I figured I might as well go all in. The original design of four tracks was chosen only because that was all I could manage without compromising the length of the tracks with more turnouts. Neither four nor seven were selected according to need as I don't yet have a working timetable; something I fear I may regret if I commit to a design before deciding on one.

 

 

There's no real reason for the spur being shaped as it is other than Minories tradition. Either of your suggestions would work. I just need to choose one that I like the aesthetics of.

Minories is a great place to start from with considerations of a possible plan. If you tried moving the tunnel entrances towards the centre or back, you could have a useful "on stage" area at the front, in front of the traverser. See Bradfield Gloucester Square for example: http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/28198-bradfield-gloucester-square-br-1962-ish/ . The only problem is access to the traverser if the layout backs onto a wall of the room, in turn depending on which side you intend to operate from.

 

aac

[David04]

I thought I'd give woodenhead's suggestion a go:

 

 

I'm not convinced for two (somewhat touchy-feely reasons) reasons:

 

1) Giving the loco spur direct access to all four platforms somehow makes the layout feel less interesting operationally. Would be more fun perhaps if the pilot had to work at it a bit more?

2) Laying things out this way seems to put an awful lot of traffic on the approach and leaves the departure track looking somewhat superfluous. In fact I thought for a moment that I'd somehow managed to break Minories and had to go back and check CJF's original to make sure my plan still qualified.

 

Despite my reservations, I thought I'd post the new design here in case someone found it interesting.

[aac]

I thought I'd give woodenhead's suggestion a go:

 

 

I'm not convinced for two (somewhat touchy-feely reasons) reasons:

 

1) Giving the loco spur direct access to all four platforms somehow makes the layout feel less interesting operationally. Would be more fun perhaps if the pilot had to work at it a bit more?

2) Laying things out this way seems to put an awful lot of traffic on the approach and leaves the departure track looking somewhat superfluous. In fact I thought for a moment that I'd somehow managed to break Minories and had to go back and check CJF's original to make sure my plan still qualified.

 

Despite my reservations, I thought I'd post the new design here in case someone found it interesting.

See my earlier post at #16. If you turn the plan in #17 upside down and extend the spurs in"in front" of the traverser, you will start to see what I was getting at. Personally, I would dispense with the lower of the two spurs in your plan at #17 and put another spur coming off the top one.

 

aac

[David04]

Thanks aac. Here's the latest version with the spur moved as you suggested. I've also sorted the easements.

 

 

The shorter of the two sidings on the middle baseboard (what was once the coal siding) is now the loco spur. The longer siding is a headshunt for the parcels depot. I'm not quite there yet; the sidings look a bit "goofy". I'm also not convinced that I need both as the station pilot can't be in both places at once.

 

I decided not to open up the space in front of the traverser as I want the station to feel quite cramped and claustrophobic. Again, this is not something I've yet achieved to my satisfaction.

[aac]

Thanks aac. Here's the latest version with the spur moved as you suggested. I've also sorted the easements.

 

 

The shorter of the two sidings on the middle baseboard (what was once the coal siding) is now the loco spur. The longer siding is a headshunt for the parcels depot. I'm not quite there yet; the sidings look a bit "goofy". I'm also not convinced that I need both as the station pilot can't be in both places at once.

 

I decided not to open up the space in front of the traverser as I want the station to feel quite cramped and claustrophobic. Again, this is not something I've yet achieved to my satisfaction.

I can see how you want to give the cramped feeling, and I have tried to do that by breaking up the length of my Liverpool Hanover Street (6'6" overall, with the extended concourse in later photos)(not yet a thread on here) into vignette areas of interest. What it actually does is allow me to disguise the fact that trains aren't very long. The longest (back) platform takes a loco and 4 coaches, the shorter (near) one takes one coach less, while the centre storage road holds four. The station pilot can play all day long with this plan as there is no run-round. I play this scene as Platforms 1 and 2 of a larger station, so there is no on-scene transfer through a crossover loop between the arrival and departure tracks as you are using. I'll show you how the outline carcass of the overhead structure, based on three bridges, was designed to help, and then show some in-build shots to get an idea of my aim to get areas of interest that aren't too broad and open. Once the main build is done, the addition of detailing is where the fun starts:

In the first shot the platforms are at the left hand end beyond the furthest bridge. You can see the other two areas, defined by bridges, to the right. The top and bottom tracks at the right hand end are sidings - the far one for parcels under the building, and the near one for 2 locos, or a 2-car DMU, or odd stock. As much as anything, it's a shunting puzzle.

This is the platform area roughly in its current state of dvelopment:

This the centre area:

Finally, this is the right hand end: 

The idea is that you can't see everything at once, especially as the station platform section will have the big end windows at both ends of that section to enclose it as a diorama, basically. A solid overall roof with some roof glass will sit on the line of the slope, resting on the top of the projecting buttresses  Then you look between the left hand and centre bridges, and then between the centre and right hand end with the tunnel mouth. I hope this helps. 

 

aac

[PjKing1]

Great layout aac

 

Cheers

[aac]

Great layout aac

 

Cheers

Thanks. It's not big. The whole bridge area lifts off as one piece to allow track cleaning, etc. The fun is in sound locos burping away at low speed.

 

aac

[bobster]

I can see how you want to give the cramped feeling, and I have tried to do that by breaking up the length of my Liverpool Hanover Street (6'6" overall, with the extended concourse in later photos)(not yet a thread on here) into vignette areas of interest. What it actually does is allow me to disguise the fact that trains aren't very long. The longest (back) platform takes a loco and 4 coaches, the shorter (near) one takes one coach less, while the centre storage road holds four. The station pilot can play all day long with this plan as there is no run-round. I play this scene as Platforms 1 and 2 of a larger station, so there is no on-scene transfer through a crossover loop between the arrival and departure tracks as you are using. I'll show you how the outline carcass of the overhead structure, based on three bridges, was designed to help, and then show some in-build shots to get an idea of my aim to get areas of interest that aren't too broad and open. Once the main build is done, the addition of detailing is where the fun starts:

SDC10025-min1.JPG

In the first shot the platforms are at the left hand end beyond the furthest bridge. You can see the other two areas, defined by bridges, to the right. The top and bottom tracks at the right hand end are sidings - the far one for parcels under the building, and the near one for 2 locos, or a 2-car DMU, or odd stock. As much as anything, it's a shunting puzzle.

This is the platform area roughly in its current state of dvelopment:SDC10124-min1.JPG

This the centre area:SDC11980-min1.JPG

Finally, this is the right hand end:SDC10119-min.JPG

The idea is that you can't see everything at once, especially as the station platform section will have the big end windows at both ends of that section to enclose it as a diorama, basically. A solid overall roof with some roof glass will sit on the line of the slope, resting on the top of the projecting buttresses  Then you look between the left hand and centre bridges, and then between the centre and right hand end with the tunnel mouth. I hope this helps. 

 

aac

 

Very nice layout AAC, would like to see you start a thread on this great project

 

Cheers, Bob.

[aac]

Very nice layout AAC, would like to see you start a thread on this great project

 

Cheers, Bob.

Thanks Bob. I will do, but it might be a short while as we have just had a close family bereavement, so once all that is dealt with I will do so. Meanwhile I don't want to hijack Dave04's thread saying more about my work when his looks so very interesting too!

Regards

aac

[Zomboid]

I don't know how proficient you are with the woodwork, but a traverser is quite an undertaking for a beginner. Probably the best option in terms of storage and operations on a minories variation, but I'd think long and hard before committing to one.

In terms of the actual scenic bit though, I do think you're on the right track.