What can be done with OO gauge in a 11' by 11' room?

[Harlequin]

I know you said you weren't sure what you wanted in the opening post, OnTheBranchline, but has any of the above helped to crystallise your thoughts?

 

End-to-end or roundy-round? Single track or double? Sparse trackwork, medium or dense? Rural or urban? Simple or complex operation?

 

Do you have a design in mind?

 

Sorry, "No-one expects the Spanish Inquisition" - it would just be nice to get a little bit of closure... ;-)

[Joseph_Pestell]

Another important factor in planning. Where is the access to the room?

 

If it is a door in the corner, that will impact on the design.

 

And does the OP want a "system" (more than one scene/location) or just a station? In a square room, the best way to get length for a station can be a long curve across the middle of the room.

[TrevorP1]

A quick print of my version of Grampound Road between St Austell and Truro, deliberately chosen because the real thing is on a curve. No buildings shown yet but the station is at the top of the plan. Take no notice of the square by the over bridge, I was playing with buildings and forgot to delete it. The curves at either end are 3' radius, much more through the platform. The only one tighter than 3' is the lay-by siding top right. The blue area will be the lifting flap, not ideal as part of the fiddle yard but it just 'has to be'. At least all the pointwork is on it so that it will be easy to install motors underneath. The tracks marked in red in the fiddle yard are areas for cassettes.

 

Still being worked on and not ideal in some respects but some things 'just have to be'.

 

It's just something that will suit me and a bonus is I know the area reasonably well from holidays. As others have said, it depends what you want.

 

The building will be 12 X 10 but this comes down to something less than 11' 6" x 9' 6" after building insulation etc.

 

[Barry Ten]

A quick print of my version of Grampound Road between St Austell and Truro, deliberately chosen because the real thing is on a curve.

 

 

 

I like the way you've avoided (as far as I can tell) any curved turnouts on the entry/exit roads of the fiddle yard. Mine does have them and they're a definite

weakness, especially with kit-built stock, needing a lot of adjustment to get reliable running. Putting the fiddle yard on a curve like that works nicely.

[OnTheBranchline]

A quick print of my version of Grampound Road between St Austell and Truro, deliberately chosen because the real thing is on a curve. No buildings shown yet but the station is at the top of the plan. Take no notice of the square by the over bridge, I was playing with buildings and forgot to delete it. The curves at either end are 3' radius, much more through the platform. The only one tighter than 3' is the lay-by siding top right. The blue area will be the lifting flap, not ideal as part of the fiddle yard but it just 'has to be'. At least all the pointwork is on it so that it will be easy to install motors underneath. The tracks marked in red in the fiddle yard are areas for cassettes.

 

Still being worked on and not ideal in some respects but some things 'just have to be'.

 

It's just something that will suit me and a bonus is I know the area reasonably well from holidays. As others have said, it depends what you want.

 

The building will be 12 X 10 but this comes down to something less than 11' 6" x 9' 6" after building insulation etc.

 

Grampound Road.jpg

Do you go underneath to get in the middle?

[TrevorP1]

Do you go underneath to get in the middle?

 

 

 

Yes, via the blue area. There are in fact some curved turnouts but things might change yet. As I mentioned, the layout's home isn't even built but I have spent some considerable time on many and various plans and this is the one that I think I'll stick with. Although it might change in detail it's the one that works for me. I'll start a thread in a month or 6 weeks when things have calmed down and hopefully the shed base will be down by then.

[TonyMay]

Some might disagree.  Have a look at this layout, which crops up quite regularly in threads of this nature on RMWeb.  It fits in an 8ft6"x7ft6" bedroom:

 

 

Plenty of people would be very grateful for 11ftx11ft for a 4mm layout.  You can fit a lot in to such a space if that's what you want.  A useful first step is to decide what it is you want to get out of the layout.  Some people want somewhere they can exercise their extensive collection of locos & stock, others prioritise realistic operations over numbers of trains, others again enjoy making a convincing scenic location with a railway running through it.  Ultimately, unless you are one of the super-rich then space & money will always be constraints - and unless you're retired, time is likely to place even greater limits on what you can do.

 

It's a good idea, when embarking on a new project of this (or indeed any) kind to have a clear of idea of what you definitely want to achieve vs what you are prepared to do without, or at least treat as a lower priority.  These requirements always need to be tempered by what is realistically achievable in terms of time & money.  It's also useful to set yourself some early objectives so that you can feel that you are making progress - and maybe also use the milestone as an opportunity to take time to review and reflect on what you've achieved so far and what you plan to do next; you may find that your priorities have changed during the time spent working towards your initial objectives.

 

In summary: better to make a considered plan at the outset than to launch in to something that's not realistically achievable or that you won't actually find very satisfying when it's finished.  (But don't fall in to the trap of incessant planning with no action!)

 

"Crewlisle" is mostly touted by its creator as being the solution to everyone else's problems, whatever they might be.  Obviously there's not a one-size-fits-all solution, and this isn't it.  It's a fairly good plan in some ways, although as always with flaws.  Pretending that it is like even vaguely like Crewe or Carlisle or indeed anywhere else on the WCML takes a very very large stretch of the imagination (there's no way it can take a Duchess with 18 coaches on the Royal Scot), but you could model a believable secondary line or branchline using the basic geometry.

[Titan]

 (there's no way it can take a Duchess with 18 coaches on the Royal Scot)

 

Didn't anybody tell you that length is not as important as what you do with what you've got?

 

Perfectly possible to make a good representation of WCML with less than 18 coaches....

Edited August 10, 2018 by Titan

[Barry Ten]

"Crewlisle" is mostly touted by its creator as being the solution to everyone else's problems, whatever they might be. 

 

 

I'm already surprised the Crewlisle guy hasn't popped in to tell us how great Crewlisle is, how reliable, what a crowd-puller etc.

Edited August 10, 2018 by Barry Ten

[Happy Hippo]

Have a look at Iain Rice's two books:

 

'Main lines in modest spaces' and 'Designs for urban layouts' which have some very good plans and ideas within them.

[south_tyne]

I'm already surprised the Crewlisle guy hasn't popped in to tell us how great Crewlisle is, how reliable, what a crowd-puller etc.

Ditto Horses for courses mind and I am sure it pulls in the crowds but is just isn't what I would do with the space. To be fair, if operation is the goal then it probably is a good bet.

 

I would go for a less is more approach, an intermediate passing station on a secondary route. A loop and a small goods yard of 3/4 sidings would be my approach. Lots of scope mind and many of us would kill for this kind of space!

[PatB]

Personally I'd be looking at stretching one of CJF's 7'6"x5'6" "garden shed" layouts to fit the space, There was a rather nice folded dumbell with high level terminus in Track Plans that, although cramped as drawn, I reckon would spread nicely to give both continuous main line running and the interesting operation of a terminus. However CJFs quart into a pint pot approach doesn't suit everyone. For something a bit less ambitious, how about a Deane type terminus to fiddleyard? The space you have should allow a decent sized (compressed) station, so might be able to invoke Rule 1 without too much of a stretch to run your big locos, and you can hide/disguise a suitable link track so you can watch the trains go by on a continuous run. Traditionally, Deane layouts seem to have been single-track branches but I can't see any reason why it couldn't work with a Minories or similar double-track terminus.

[south_tyne]

Personally I'd be looking at stretching one of CJF's 7'6"x5'6" "garden shed" layouts to fit the space, There was a rather nice folded dumbell with high level terminus in Track Plans that, although cramped as drawn, I reckon would spread nicely to give both continuous main line running and the interesting operation of a terminus. However CJFs quart into a pint pot approach doesn't suit everyone. For something a bit less ambitious, how about a Deane type terminus to fiddleyard? The space you have should allow a decent sized (compressed) station, so might be able to invoke Rule 1 without too much of a stretch to run your big locos, and you can hide/disguise a suitable link track so you can watch the trains go by on a continuous run. Traditionally, Deane layouts seem to have been single-track branches but I can't see any reason why it couldn't work with a Minories or similar double-track terminus.

Actually I think that is an excellent idea. Most of us end up compressing designs/plans to fit available space but if the opposite is possible then that is a much better approach. I am a fan of Freezer plans and whilst somewhat dated they still provide an excellent resource for layout ideas. Stretching some of his plans, giving them extra room to breath, would be a good option.

 

To the OP, the booklet I provided a link to earlier in the thread has some good designs for the kind of 'garden shed' space referenced above, which could be adapted accordingly.

[Barry Ten]

Have a look at Iain Rice's two books:

 

'Main lines in modest spaces' and 'Designs for urban layouts' which have some very good plans and ideas within them.

 

Agreed, and there's some equally interesting and doable stuff in Barry Norman's book on layout design, including quite

a few room-sized continuous run layouts.

[Joseph_Pestell]

Didn't anybody tell you that length is not as important as what you do with what you've got?

 

You obviously mix with a better class of woman than I do.

[Joseph_Pestell]

Even expanding some of the CJF smaller plans does not help much. The basic problem remains that taking 2' of each corner of the layout for curves, there is only 7' left to represent a station scene. Not impossible, employing a few "tricks", to do this. But by having two straight sides and a long curve (as the Grampound Rd scheme above does), one can get a much longer station scene (c 13ft). Make the main layout the shape of a gridiron football, and two station scenes, or a station scene plus another scene) should be possible with the fiddleyards arranged around the outer walls on narrow shelves. I might do a drawing of this later when I have finished work (on lunch break right now).

 

I am fairly sure that Bodmin Rd could be modelled in this sort of space with only minimal compression. Not of course King territory but we can apply Rule 1 about the Saltash bridge.

[TrevorP1]

 

I am fairly sure that Bodmin Rd could be modelled in this sort of space with only minimal compression. Not of course King territory but we can apply Rule 1 about the Saltash bridge.

 

 

Bodmin Road... Now there's thought... Oh dear...  

[jamespetts]

There is much to be said for using a computer track planning utility such as AnyRail or SCARM to see what you can sensibly fit into the space. Be sure to work out what are sensible minimum radii and maximum gradients before working on a design.

[Titan]

There is much to be said for using a computer track planning utility such as AnyRail or SCARM to see what you can sensibly fit into the space. Be sure to work out what are sensible minimum radii and maximum gradients before working on a design.

 

That is exactly what I did. Measured the available space very carefully, including any incursions/obstacles, then spent plenty of time and several iterations, particularly of the station throat on CAD. In my case I used Xtracad (not sure if that is correct spelling), and when I laid the track it all went down exactly according to plan, which made the tracklaying quick and easy. The only thing I have not done yet is the timesaver for the goods yard - ended up all being straight storage sidings so I could accommodate more stock!

[Clearwater]

You could also get what you want by being creative. You don't need a whole station perhaps, just the end of the platform with a footbridge as a scenic break to the sharp curve to the corner to give you most of one side as open country side running or a locomotive shed with two running tracks in the background - I think Kensal Green does that.

[Andrew P]

Agreed, and there's some equally interesting and doable stuff in Barry Norman's book on layout design, including quite

a few room-sized continuous run layouts.

 

 

Barry, I'm not sure if your aware or not, but John Flann passed away earlier this year, and your Layout with that name could be a nice tribute to his love of Dorset and his back story to his Layouts.

https://www.hintockbranch.com/

[Crewlisle]

"Crewlisle" is mostly touted by its creator as being the solution to everyone else's problems, whatever they might be.  Obviously there's not a one-size-fits-all solution, and this isn't it.  It's a fairly good plan in some ways, although as always with flaws.  Pretending that it is like even vaguely like Crewe or Carlisle or indeed anywhere else on the WCML takes a very very large stretch of the imagination (there's no way it can take a Duchess with 18 coaches on the Royal Scot), but you could model a believable secondary line or branchline using the basic geometry.

 

I have just browsed through this forum & perhaps I could answer TonyMay's comments:

 

1.    If you look carefully, it was not me who 'touted' my layout plan in the forum in Comment 32  but someone who thought it worth considering.  Yes it does have flaws but as with most layouts, you have to  compromise.

 

2.    RMweb is a website where members can ask questions on any railway subject & there will always be someone out there who knows the answer or can offer advice.  It is entirely up to whoever asked the original question whether they act on the advice given,whether it is 'What can I fit in this space?' or 'How do I do this?'.

 

3.    I have never pretended it is like Crewe or Carlisle. I should be so lucky to have the space to represent either of them!   Like most layouts it is a fictitious name made up from probably the two largest & most important rail centres on the WCML in the 1950s - Crewe & Carlisle.

 

4.    It would be great to have a layout to run a Duchess with 16 or 18 coaches, but I am quite happy to have a Duchess or Princess pulling 6.  It was always great to see them come through Rugby at speed.   Is it any different from a layout with 25Kv electrics with no OLE just because the owner likes Class 86/87s?  

     

5.    In all my posts when describing Crewlisle (& at exhibitions) I always say that, I am the first to admit It is not the most detailed or prototypical layout but was built for entertainment & for  me  to run my trains  as  I  remember them from my trainspotting days.  I have always admired someone who builds a layout of an actual prototype down to the last blade of grass, but most of us do not have the patience or skills to build such layouts, so we all have to compromise. 

 

6.    At the Bristol Exhibition many years ago, the late Cyril Freezer of RM & track plan books fame, stopped at my layout where we had a long discussion about the layout.  He finished by saying, "You  have a lot of track in a small space but it does not look out of place".  Coming from him it was praise indeed & that statement made my day!

 

7.    All the scenery is just basic scatter materials; no electrostatic grass or scratch built buildings (apart from the coaling shed/water tank); a mixture of Superquick, Wills & Peco kits using Superquick brick/stone paper; turntable is scratch built from a lathe turned 12mm ply base & hand operated using Meccano gears.  Because it is hand operated , at exhibitions I let children operate it & have a go at driving either on the main line or on the shed/turntable (with fingers hovering over the emergency stop button!).  This is  good PR to encourage youngsters into the hobby when you notice a distinct lack of youngsters at exhibitions.

 

8. With regard to his last comment about '....but you could model a believable secondary line or branch line using the basic geometry', I agree but  I have had many visitors at exhibitions say, 'I was going to build a fiddle yard to branch line or secondary line in this size space, but you have completely changed my way of thinking!'

 

9. Finally at exhibitions, I like my operators to give the visitors 'value for money'  by always running at least two trains/locos & sometimes as many as four simultaneously.  I have lost count of the number of comments, "It is good to see something moving".   I have seen some exhibition layouts with a four track mainline with visitors four deep just waiting for something to appear.  So 'Yes' I plead guilty to running a 'roundy-roundy' layout which annoys some modellers & 'touting' it around, but there are many average modellers (like myself) out there who enjoy these type of layouts.

 

Peter

Edited August 14, 2018 by Crewlisle

[PatB]

I have just browsed through this forum & perhaps I could answer TonyMay's comments:

 

1. If you look carefully, it was not me who 'touted' my layout plan in the forum in Comment 32 but someone who thought it worth considering. Yes it does have flaws but as with most layouts, you have to compromise.

 

2. RMweb is a website where members can ask questions on any railway subject & there will always be someone out there who knows the answer or can offer advice. It is entirely up to whoever asked the original question whether they act on the advice given,whether it is 'What can I fit in this space?' or 'How do I do this?'.

 

3. I have never pretended it is like Crewe or Carlisle. I should be so lucky to have the space to represent either of them! Like most layouts it is a fictitious name made up from probably the two largest & most important rail centres on the WCML in the 1950s - Crewe & Carlisle.

 

4. It would be great to have a layout to run a Duchess with 16 or 18 coaches, but I am quite happy to have a Duchess or Princess pulling 6. It was always great to see them come through Rugby at speed. Is it any different from a layout with 25Kv electrics with no OLE just because the owner likes Class 86/87s?

 

5. In all my posts when describing Crewlisle (& at exhibitions) I always say that, I am the first to admit It is not the most detailed or prototypical layout but was built for entertainment & for me to run my trains as I remember them from my trainspotting days. I have always admired someone who builds a layout of an actual prototype down to the last blade of grass, but most of us do not have the patience or skills to build such layouts, so we all have to compromise.

 

6. At the Bristol Exhibition many years ago, the late Cyril Freezer of RM & track plan books fame, stopped at my layout where we had a long discussion about the layout. He finished by saying, "You have a lot of track in a small space but it does not look out of place". Coming from him it was praise indeed & that statement made my day!

 

7. All the scenery is just basic scatter materials; no electrostatic grass or scratch built buildings (apart from the coaling shed/water tank); a mixture of Superquick, Wills & Peco kits using Superquick brick/stone paper; turntable is scratch built from a lathe turned 12mm ply base & hand operated using Meccano gears. Because it is hand operated , at exhibitions I let children operate it & have a go at driving either on the main line or on the shed/turntable (with fingers hovering over the emergency stop button!). This is good PR to encourage youngsters into the hobby when you notice a distinct lack of youngsters at exhibitions.

 

8. With regard to his last comment about '....but you could model a believable secondary line or branch line using the basic geometry', I agree but I have had many visitors at exhibitions say, 'I was going to build a fiddle yard to branch line or secondary line in this size space, but you have completely changed my way of thinking!'

 

9. Finally at exhibitions, I like my operators to give the visitors 'value for money' by always running at least two trains/locos & sometimes as many as four simultaneously. I have lost count of the number of comments, "It is good to see something moving". I have seen some exhibition layouts with a four track mainline with visitors four deep just waiting for something to appear. So 'Yes' I plead guilty to running a 'roundy-roundy' layout which annoys some modellers & 'touting' it around, but there are many average modellers (like myself) out there who enjoy these type of layouts.

 

Peter

Quite so. Layouts like Crewlisle are not for everyone and are certainly not the only option for such a space, but it is a good example of what you can pack into the space if you want a main line system and don't mind making some compromises. It also illustrates that you don't have to lose 50%+ of your available space to a hidden fiddle yard if you don't want to. Certainly, if you can't live with the idea of a pacific with 5-6 coaches representing an express, a 4-4-0 and 3-4 a semi-fast and an 0-6-0T and 2 as the branch local, it's not the right approach for you, but it's a valid one for those who can.

 

It really comes down to which side of the Great Freezer-Rice Schism one comes down on and how far one can stretch one's personal suspension of disbelief.

[south_tyne]

Quite so. Layouts like Crewlisle are not for everyone and are certainly not the only option for such a space, but it is a good example of what you can pack into the space if you want a main line system and don't mind making some compromises. It also illustrates that you don't have to lose 50%+ of your available space to a hidden fiddle yard if you don't want to. Certainly, if you can't live with the idea of a pacific with 5-6 coaches representing an express, a 4-4-0 and 3-4 a semi-fast and an 0-6-0T and 2 as the branch local, it's not the right approach for you, but it's a valid one for those who can.

 

It really comes down to which side of the Great Freezer-Rice Schism one comes down on and how far one can stretch one's personal suspension of disbelief.

Ultimately it would be a boring world if we were all the same. This hobby is for EVERYONE who wants to be involved whatever your interests. Some people want a Crewlisle, others potter shunting with a handful of wagons. There is room for both approaches and everything in between

[Joseph_Pestell]

We still seem to be a bit lacking in knowledge of what type of layout is wanted here.

 

But another option would be a circular layout in the style of Star Lane, Hooley. The outer circuit would be mostly at 5' radius which fits in nicely with Peco trackwork.

 

http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/67894-star-lane-hooley/

Edited August 15, 2018 by Joseph_Pestell