Advice and feedback for a first-timer

[Tiny151]

Hello RMweb,

 

'Long time listener, first time caller!'

 

I've been working on planning my first 'proper' layout for a while now and after a few false starts finally have my baseboards built. Yet I find myself struggling to finally commit to laying that first piece of track and crossing the point of no return. Before I do this I'd really appreciate anybody willing to cast an experienced eye over my plan for the sake of spotting any rookie errors, and for any suggestions of general improvements, I'm really open to tweaking things or even more major rethinks.

 

The general concept

A medium sized line based 'just outside of nowhere' in the modern preservation era (a cop out, I know!), primarily steam locos with a scattering of early diesel, running both passenger and freight trains. I'm approaching it with the ethos of aiming realistic, but being happy to comprise as the medium demands. Ultimately I'd like to have something pleasing to sit back and look at as a train set, whilst still offering fun operational factors, plus the opportunity to get lost in a few different distinct scenes of a fleshed out miniature world!

 

What I've got to work with

• A loft room with access hatch (hatch sits just inside the edges of the bottom left corner of the baseboard in the diagram).
• Solid frames already built, with a 9mm ply baseboard, mounted against the walls of the room. Dimensions are based on the most board I could get on each side taking into account hatch, accessing windows and my reach! Measurements show on the diagram.
• The overhang corners are not built yet and could be resized, likewise there is the potential to extend other sections of the board slightly.
• A lowered baseboard, about 30cms, this being the left hand end where the bridge is located on my diagram.
• Code 100 track. This is my first venture outside of the world of set-track and, after channeling many hours into reading various threads on the merits of 100, 75 and bullhead, my hand was forced with the bargain purchase of two new 25 packs of Peco wooden sleeper code 100 flexi for £13(!!) -  A local auction for house clearances, before you ask! 
• Points have not been purchased, I've yet to settle on whether to go down the route of electrofrogs, something I have no experience with. Would they be essential or beneficial to what I've planned?
• DCC -  I've got a Gaugemaster Prodigy system already purchased.

 

Key requirements

• A running loop, ideally 2, for watching the trains go by
• The capacity to handle 4 coach trains
• A few sidings for light shunting
• A station
• A prominent shed scene for storage/display of locos
• Storage on the layout for an additional rake of coaches and various wagons
• A bridge, or similar feature, on the lowered left-hand side of the layout
• A turntable

 

What I've got so far

 

The diagram will hopefully offer a decent summary of what I've managed to draft so far, but to explain a few features.

• The grey box on the left is a bridge, I've got a Metcalfe viaduct built which could fit nicely here.
• The red sections in the depot are an engine shed and raised coal drop.
• The brown area represents a road bridge and raised town scene with retaining wall.
• I've worked in a hidden storage siding under this scene which would be accessed under the guise of a tunnel running off under the town, I'm not sure how well realistically this would work considering loading gauge and overhang. 
• There's one set-track point in the top left hand corner to access the short station terminus (for autotrains/DMU) and additional sidings, this does cause me some concern on the radius front.
• I've not settled on a purpose for the top left corner sidings, a goods shed or cattle stage come to mind.
• I've also no set ideas for landscape or scenery for the bottom left corner and big sweeping curve section yet, other than maybe trying to imitate a light cutting. so any ideas!

 

Hopefully this is enough information to get some feedback. If there's something I've missed out or can elaborate on, please mention. My biggest concert is that I might be trying to squeeze too much track in and as a result not giving the scene and setting room to breathe, but this is the only way I found to fit in everything I was hoping for. All criticism and advice welcome and gratefully received. 

 

Thanks for taking the time to read!

[Clagsniffer]

One thing that jumps out at me straight away is the curves at the top left. They look extremely tight radii. 

[MarshLane]

I'd agree with Clagsniffer on the tightness of the curves, might be worth trying to push the station over so its more central, and ease the curves off a bit.  In terms of pointwork, if you are going DCC then definitely go electrofrog, just remember you need to 'gap' the rails after the points to avoid any shorts, but you'll get far smoother running and less problems by going electrofrog now.

 

The only other thought I have, is that you've said about squeezing too much track in.  It all depends on whether you want to do scenery etc, or run trains. If its the former, it may be worth trying to pair a few things back?  The old saying of less is more usually works out!  But above all else, enjoy your new model railway!

 

Rich

[DCB]

There isn't really anywhere to store trains off scene.   You can have about three passenger trains and a goods stored in the station and twenty locos lurking in the loco shed but that's about it.  The line would also work better with right hand running as per much of europe and the US rather than the UK left hand running.  UK practice was to back in to sidings. 

I think  re think is needed rather than peripheral fiddling.    Curved platforms always look good, may be the answer to the tight curve issue.

[Harlequin]

Hi Tiny,

 

What David is saying is that the facing points are not typical of UK practice, which runs on the left and prefers trailing points where possible. As drawn it’s more like a right-hand running European model but that’s no good for you, I guess.

 

Other problems:

• Hidden storage under scenic area difficult to use. Entrance will look odd, how do you know when to stop and how do you deal with stuck trains?
• Kick back sidings top left outside the circuits difficult to access.
• Kick back spur top left inside the circuit difficult because the long siding feeding it has to be half empty to use it.
• Sidings at top don’t seem to have a purpose. What will you shunt into them and why (in the preservation era)?
• Coal drop headshunt probably too short for loco plus one wagon (unless maybe an 0-4-0).
• Coal drop ramp very steep. (Preservation era coaling would probably be done by a JCB, telehandler or similar.)
• Crossovers between platforms create clearance issues.
• Corner radii very tight as has been said above.
• The shed area is overpowering - that’s the element that squeezes out the scenery more than any other.
• The engine shed itself actually hides locos and if it's more than two locos deep makes the ones at the back difficult to get out.

 

Sorry, but you do need a complete rethink, as David said. RMWeb is here to help you!

Edited June 27, 2019 by Harlequin

[Fluo66]

Harlequin is right. Let them halp you to redesign the track plan. Otherwise it may happen that you are not happy with your layout later.

 

I was also a beginner I have completely rebuilt my layout 3 times since 2013 for the same reason and wasted a lot of time and money (but learned a lot ).

 

Less is more is also right. I did not want to hear that either. But that’s right. Less points end up in less wiring and complexity. And you have mor space for scenery.

[Zomboid]

I think you have more requirements than space. Which is hardly unusual, I expect most model railways start like that.

 

You say you're thinking preservation era, but in that context you've drawn a bit of the GCR with Horsted Keynes station and a large chunk of the Didcot Railway Centre attached. It doesn't exactly scream believable to me. Do you really want to model preservation, or do you want to run a bunch of mismatched steam engines? If the latter then a generic steam era plan would probably meet your requirements. Modelling the preservation scene is completely different, no matter how much the heritage railways tell you that you're stepping back in time when you visit them...

 

[DCB]

I think based on the fact the baseboards are already built I would aim for something like my doodle.

The crossovers are now trailing instead of facing. the visible curves have been eased. There are two loops and the two main lines  behind a backscene behind the simplified loco shed .   There is room to hold 4 trains out of sight while a fifth a goods shunts the station, train lengths are up around 5-6 coaches, which looks a lot more like a main line semi fast than 4 does, I like 7 as a minimum myself if there is room.

I shortened the loco shed as you can't see what is in the back of a big shed ( from experience) so locos are better left in the open where they can be admired.  Track would be mix of streamilne and set track with 2nd radius on almost all the hidden curves instead of 2nd/3rd/4th to get the outer tracks round .  Haven't done it in anyrail but it should work as a concept

[Tiny151]

Hello all,

 

Firstly, thanks so much for this many useful and thought out responses in such a short time, it's really appreciated. 

 

It certainly seems like a more major rethink may be in order, which I'll embrace rather than feel discouraged by! I'd never even considered right or left hand running, but now it's mentioned seems such an obvious oversight I know I'd never have been able to look past it if I realised once laid. Better to make the mistakes now.

 

Regarding the preservation theme, @Zomboid, I must admit this is mainly driven by the desire to run a broad mixture of not necessarily matching locos (too many already purchased before track is laid!). I think it's important to me to have some rough form of logic to the setting, so I'll avoid reverting to just running in a generic period steam setting, I need to provide myself some vague reasoning why my Britannia is stabled with an SECR P! I do also find that having a clear boundary of what is 'allowed' helps control the stock acquisition bug, or maybe it just feeds it by putting a tantalising completest goal vaguely in sight... I'll let you know if I end up with eighteen Black Fives! But back on topic, I can certainly see that the two main sections of the layout are quite mismatched in that context, the Bluebell/Didcot example is a very helpful way to frame it. That said, having also seen the growth of newly laid sidings and sheds at various preserved stations around the country, I hope the shed doesn't need to be scaled back too much to become believable. I picked up the recent Peco special on modeling heritage lines which made some very interesting points about the distinctive quirks which need to be taken into account, I'll have to schedule a reread of that this weekend. 

 

@DavidCBroad, that sketch is fantastic, thank you. After looking at the same plan for so long and tweaking bits back and forth it can be really hard to see the blank canvas of the board for what is and not to fall into familiar traps when trying to start fresh. I know it's not a drastic change, but it's massively useful to me as a jumping off point. The sweeping station looks far classier than my unnaturally blocky version. The storage loops make much more sense than piles of fragmented sidings and certainly offer better opportunity for ground space to let the scenes breathe. I shouldn't already be imagining the town high street over the top with moving road vehicles and trams should I?

 

I'll take all that's been offered on board and will try to work on my SCARM plan over the next few days!

 

[rogerzilla]

The dread of facing points was certainly there in the early days of railways in the UK (allegedly the Settle-Carlisle line didn't have a single example when it was built, and trains always needed to back up to get off the running line for any reason).  Things got a bit more relaxed over the years, as railways grew to trust the locking bars, and relief running lines to the side of the main line wouldn't be possible without facing points.

 

Unlike real trains, which have the weight to deflect the blades, an OO gauge train running through a trailing point set against it will usually derail anyway.

Edited June 27, 2019 by rogerzilla

[Crewlisle]

Tiny,

 

To give you some idea what can be built in a layout of your size, look on Google at my 00 gauge DCC layout 'Crewlisle'.  It is 2.6M x 2.3M with three interconnected  levels. The high level has a 4 platform terminus to handle 6 coach expresses, steam shed, diesel shed and marshalling yard.  The mid level represents the WCML with OLE and the low level is a reversing loop incorporating 1.5M cassettes replacing the standard fiddle yard.  Each cassette can hold a loco + 4 coaches or 10 short wheelbase wagons.  Minimum radius is second radius, normally in the tunnels.

 

I run a total of 52 BR Standard and ex-LMS locos locos (mixture of steam diesel and electric), 65 passenger/parcel coaches and 112 goods wagons.  At exhibitions I run a minimum of two trains simultaneously and sometimes as many as four.  It was built for entertainment.  That is why it has appeared at the NEC five times and for my exhibition circuit swansong at the NEC next year.

 

Anyone wanting a more detailed description, I can send them a PM via RMWeb.

 

Peter

[Tiny151]

Hello again,

 

Following all the helpful advice above I've been reworking my plan, largely inspired by @DavidCBroad's posted image. I've also made the switch from SCARM to AnyRail, so I've spent a few nights getting to grips with the new software.

 

 

To cover a few thing I've been thinking over during this process: 

• The shape of the layout feels less square (well, as little as I think is possible with a square work area and given what I'm after!).
• I'm pleased to have lost the single set track point and associated tight curve, I think the curves look reasonable enough now, but please once again flag up anything concerning. I did wonder about clearance between lines in a couple spots.
• While I've adhered to the the general rule mentioned above of avoiding facing points, I have made an exception with the curved crossover to the left of the layout. This was for two reasons, firstly to avoid any fouling on the platforms of the station and secondly to allow the center platform to be used as an up or down line, perhaps this kind of use isn't particularly prototypical?
• I've decided to lose the coal drop in the shed area in response to the Didcot/Bluebell discussion above. In it's place I'm thinking of a small coal tower on the top entry line to the turntable. I'm hoping this should be more in line with something like the NYMR sheds and the size of line I'm trying to recreate. The one question I'm having trouble progressing is dealing with how this tower would be loaded. Would road access to a bunker be a better option than coal wagons, particularly given the need to access by the turntable?
• The shed area does feel a bit empty now, particularly when I remove the top line from the turntable. Any ideas of how to use this would be interesting, whether that's track or scenery related. Give the preservation theme I was considering a line of out of use locos perhaps culminating in a more modern styled private owner shed.
• I feel a lot more comfortable with the amount of space on the board now for scenery and shaping of the setting.
• Would there be merit in placing some points between some of the storage lines behind the backdrop to allow for multiple shorter trains to be stored on single lines easier?

Apologies for not taking the time to draw in any structures this time. I hope you can picture what I've talked about above between the descriptions and the reference of the previous posts.

 

Thanks in advance for any feedback.

 

 

Edited July 23, 2019 by Tiny151

[The Johnster]

I really can't agree that the shed area looks empty; it looks far too crowded to me.  It can stable far more locos than you'll ever need to run the layout, even if you make the place a loco change over point like Crewe, Salisbury, or Pontypool Road, which'll double the number of locos at a stroke.  You'll be hard pushed to have more than 5 trains on the layout at a time.  It looks as if you intend the actual shed to be a 4 roader, and tbh 2 will do; the space can be used for a small repair shop, making it's point with a Ratio loco hoist perhaps.

[Zomboid]

Do you actually want to model preservation, or is that just your excuse for some Rule 1 loco/ stock choices?

It's perfectly fine either way, but if you want a steam era layout with eclectic locos that'll look somewhat different to a 2019 heritage railway.

As it stands that plan is much more a steam era plan.

[Harlequin]

It looks a bit odd to me that the shed area is dissociated from the station. If the shed was part of the station complex you could maybe get them to overlap a bit and gain some space from that. (Having said that, it's unusual for a small through station to have shed let alone one with a turntable so maybe they are completely different places after all.)

If you arrange the shed area on the outside of the main circuits it could fill one of the corners, making efficient use of space and allowing the circuit radii to be wider.

Do you need to get your hands into the storage lines to make up trains? If so, then it might be better to have easier access.

There are no crossovers in the storage area so if you want a train to change direction from running down to running up (say) then it will have to appear on scene running on the wrong side for a distance before it crosses over.

 

Edited July 24, 2019 by Harlequin