Simple OO Gauge Test Layout

[petejones]

I thought I would throw together a simple layout for testing and running in my OO Gauge locos. I am using Peco Set track for convenience, mounted on a board measuring 160cm by 120cm, which are sections left-over from a previous layout (yet another failure on my part ). I bolted/glued them together to form a rectangle. On top of that, I've mounted some 25mm deep craftfoam, which has allowed me to cut a small river into the layout and I will use the remnants to form some raised areas. More castoffs include a small wayside station halt, an engine shed with inspection pit, a water tower and a signal box (from kits that I had hanging around the place). There will be two rail bridges and one road bridge (I included a level crossing so that people can get to and from the station).

 

The track plan is a loop, with sidings, one to the shed and two for wagon/carriage storage. It started life last week as just a loop, but I decided to add the sidings for a little more operational interest. It's not prototypical, but will be based on the GWR as that's what I have in my collection (1930s-60s).

 

Anyway, here's the (latest) track plan and a couple of pics. Note that the pics show a previous track plan - I changed the sidings this evening and ordered the extra track.

 

Pete

[Charlieoscarthreesix]

That looks like a great idea.

A good size for modern life.

 

What radius  are the curves?

 

Nigel

 

[petejones]

2nd on the main oval.

[Pacific231G]

Hi Pete

Rule one of course,  but I'm sort of wondering if there might not be more operational interest with the same track if you make it a double ended loop with a siding(s) at each end. Just a suggestion. I could do with a break from the article I'm writing and it's always fun to see what can be acheived done with four points so will have a quick play with AnyRail.

Edited July 19, 2019 by Pacific231G

[petejones]

I did think about a double loop, but quite liked the idea of leaving lots of space in the middle for scenery, otherwise it might end up looking like a dodgy Hornby layout with track all over the place

[Pacific231G]

I had a play and it wasn't as easy as I'd expected. I'm not used to designing with Setrack and, as soon as you try to put the points at an angle, the geometry goes to pot. I now sort of remember that from my youth trying to build TT-3 layouts with Tri-ang points and track.  

This is the best I could come up with in the space and a couple of pieces of track would need to be cut (or a short cut length of code 100 streamline inserted- which wouldn't be that difficult)

I actually tihnk your plan uses the space better. With this, the loop seems far too short and everything has gone to the edges of the board. I tried bringing one end of the loop further round the bend to make it longer but, especially using the curved point,  the two tracks separated too much. My next step would be to try mixing R2 and R3 but assume you want to use the track you already have. It's possible the layout is just too small to accomodate a sensible passing loop so I think your plan may well make better use of the space. If the sidings belong to an industry rather than being a station goods yard having a headshunt off the running line would be quite logical and the shed could be for the private loco.

I'll have another look though as there's a project layout built on a door that might be modified. That managed to include a passing station and a fiddle yard so, in theory at least, could accomodate three trains-albeit quite short ones.  

 

[The Johnster]

You could make the double ended loop longer, and able to accommodate longer trains, by having at least one end of it coming off the curve further to the right or left.  My feeling is that a loco shed is less potential use than a goods facility for a station of this sort; the shed would most likely be at the junction with the main line or at the terminus.  If one siding leads to a small goods shed (provender store?) and the other to either an industry, cattle dock, or coal yard, this means that the loco has to perform a good bit of shunting to get stock in and out of them without trapping itself at the buffer stops.  I agree that it will probably look better with the centre left for scenery, especially a hill which will give the impression of trains coming from and going to somewhere else.  A further loop at the bottom would be the genesis of a fiddle yard, and enable you to have another train parked up waiting for action.  There's room for another siding off one of the ones you've already got, but it would be short, perhaps to an end loading dock for Mogos or Lowfits.

 

Signal box is a bit distant from the level crossing, so this should either be a 'work the gates yourself' type with 'SW' boards each side of it, or have a crossing keeper, with of course a hut or even a railway cottage, as happened in some places where lady crossing keepers were employed.  In this case I'd be inclined to emphasise the point by having the signal box at the other end of the station, or half way along the loop, maybe even on the platform but the sight lines suggest the other side of the passing loop.

 

It has the genesis of a nice little passing station on a branch line somewhere, plenty of character, and a good bit of operational interest, which is the same as play value only for grown ups...

[Pacific231G]

This is going a bit away from your situation but this is a layout that was a first project in Clés pour le Train Miniature when the magazine, aimed at RTR modellers, first started. The layout used a standard (well French standard) interior 200x83 cm interior door blank as a baseboard and included a fiddle yard and a workable passing station with a goods siding and a two siding industrial branch. The two passing loops have to be inside the basic oval to fit the width of the door but  I can see no reason for the fiddle yard loop to be shorter than that for the station. I was though impressed by the operational potential of this scheme compared with the 6x4  plans in 60 plans for small railways

It does though rely on using mainly R1 curves and  I wanted to see if I could cram the same operational potential into something closer to your space using R2 curves (which for a layout meant primarily as a running in/ test track should accomodate almost any RTR loco)

This is where I've got to so far. 

 

It's 20cms longer but 20cms narrower than your baseboard and the station loop is shorter than the one in Clés, perhaps far too short.

I agree with Johnster about starting the loop in the curves but you'd need to use some R3 to make that work. I also agree about the loco shed. They can be attractive features if well modelled but add almost nothing operationally compared with a siding handling any goods traffic. 

 

It's been an interesting discipline to design with sectional track as you do need to make it all fit together so I shall play some more.

.

 

 

[Joseph_Pestell]

The loops are hopelessly short. But by moving the points so that they form the last R2 setrack curve of each 180 degree turn, they can easily be much longer while still within the 1200cm width that the OP wanted.

And if they form part of a crossover, that gives you an entrance into an industry (EP) on a corner of the board.

[Pacific231G]

They ARE far  too short but it is fairly easy to make them longer IF you're prepared to cut at least one piece of track; In reality, the tolerances of Setrack over several feet probably allow more wriggle room than the 3mm allowed by Anyrail which I don't think is cumulative. That parameter can be changed but I don't know how far it could be pushed  in reality before track would not be able to connect properly.

 

This is fairly close to Pete's original siding layout but with a passing loop that would also enable a goods train to work the kickback siding which could well be an industry. There would be enough width to add a second hidden loop and siding on the opposite side from the station, as with the Clés plan, but I'm conscious that Pete is looking to build something simple.

I've separated the goods entrance siding from the outer main to allow for a second platform but if that is a goods relief loop then it can be brought forward.

I'm not familair with the geometry of the Peco setrack curved point but assume it uses R2 and R3.

Because Setrack points are quite sharp I've avoided any reverse curves.

 

When more or less completed but not fully detailed Clés Laporte layout would have looked something like this

It's very much a first layout but not one that a beginner would have felt ashamed of and very much designed to be run en famille  so probably good fun to operate despite the very short trains.

 

At the risk of going a bit The formula adoped by Clés Pour le Train Miniature  (a low cover- price bi-monthly offshoot of Loco-Revue aimed at beginning modellers) of taking their readers step by step through building a layout in a year has been interesting and their third layout  57 Rue Effeife - the second was narrow gauge - was much more developed scenically as a 130x40cm (plus fiddle yards) lightbox shelf layout. 

This is the project layout as shown in the magazine but a more developed layout, closely based on it 57bis Rue Effeife was exhibited at the Trainsmania show in Lille in 2017 and positively oozed urban Paris.

 

Clearly, this was built by a more experienced modeller with a penchant for buildings and used Peco code 75 Streamline rather than the original project layout's Setrack (Peco do sell a lot of track in France)

 

Pete, your baseboard looks llke one of the laser cut kits and I wondered what your experience of them has been. So far I have always built all my own baseboards from a variety of materials but it's not my favourite job.

 

 

 

 

Edited July 19, 2019 by Pacific231G
missing word

[petejones]

2 hours ago, Pacific231G said:

Pete, your baseboard looks llke one of the laser cut kits and I wondered what your experience of them has been. So far I have always built all my own baseboards from a variety of materials but it's not my favourite job. 

 

These were from Grainge and Hodder and they were very quick and easy to assemble and are very light - I can easily pick this 5x4ft board up and carry it about. The obvious downside is the cost. I will need to add some thin ply round the edges that I will cut to match the profile of the scenery once I've built it up.

 

I would prefer to build my own but (a) I'm not that great at woodwork and (b) it would probably work out as expensive as I don't have a van to buy materials in large sheets/lengths.

[petejones]

2 hours ago, Pacific231G said:

This is fairly close to Pete's original siding layout but with a passing loop that would also enable a goods train to work the kickback siding which could well be an industry. There would be enough width to add a second hidden loop and siding on the opposite side from the station, as with the Clés plan, but I'm conscious that Pete is looking to build something simple.

I've separated the goods entrance siding from the outer main to allow for a second platform but if that is a goods relief loop then it can be brought

 

I like this plan - I did think about trying to add the loop at the station.

[petejones]

Some minor changes to the track plan. I like the idea of changing the engine shed for a goods shed (have two unmade kits, one from Ratio, the other from Wills). The engine shed was too close to the edge of the board anyway. I also moved the signal box to the end of the platform.

 

Not too fussed about the short sidings as I will only run trains with either one coach or a couple of wagons anyway. This isn't going to be my main layout - it's just a test circuit and a bit of practice for me (on the pretext that it's better to get something basic completed, rather than fail on something more complex).

 

 

[PatB]

Interesting thread. I do like small, simple plans that offer good play value. They feel attainable. For this reason I've always been a big fan of Bredon and its heirs and successors, although it's maybe  a bit large and complex for the purposes of the OP. 

[petejones]

Rather than a goods shed, perhaps a loading bay would be best considering the lack of space, so here's another variation and I also changed the points to trailing (assuming trains will travel in a clockwise direction around the circuit). The loco shed is back as it fits the space and I have one available anyway.

 

 

[petejones]

Minor change to the loco shed siding and added a halt at the opposite side (have a Wills plastic hit already made up for another test layout). Also added a goods shed.

[Flying Pig]

 

3 hours ago, petejones said:

Rather than a goods shed, perhaps a loading bay would be best considering the lack of space, so here's another variation and I also changed the points to trailing (assuming trains will travel in a clockwise direction around the circuit). The loco shed is back as it fits the space and I have one available anyway.

 

This works better as it gives direct access to the sidings for shunting. The loco shed is fine as a kickback.

 

Perhaps have only a single siding top left and use the point to add a private siding near the halt?  I think this might have more play value.

[petejones]

1 hour ago, Flying Pig said:

Perhaps have only a single siding top left and use the point to add a private siding near the halt?  I think this might have more play value.

 

Yes I did think about a siding by the halt. I now have a couple of spare points, so will take a look.

[petejones]

This plan uses the curved point, which is now spare. I can't go too far to the right of the halt as there is a 6-inch river (the right-most straight section before the curve, more or less).

[Flying Pig]

This is unfortunately not ideal as the siding is the opposite way round to the ones at the station, so can't be worked by the same train.  I would have used a standard LH point to take the new siding into the middle of the loop, but I wasn't aware of the river!

[petejones]

I will try and add some of the terrain features to the plan.

[The Johnster]

But not all the trains travel in the same direction, so if the main station sidings are shunted by the pickup when it is travelling clockwise on the outward journey, and the halt siding when it returns anti-clockwise, They can be worked by the same train, but the traffic for the halt siding needs to be taken to the terminus on the outward journey and brought back so that the loco is on the right end to shunt it; similarly, traffic picked up from the station sidings is taken to the terminus and brought back to the junction on the return journey. 

 

You have to remember where all the wagons are and if they are supposed to be loaded or not; Control does this on the real railway.  

Edited July 20, 2019 by The Johnster

[petejones]

Would I need to turn the loco to do the return journey?

[The Johnster]

Not necessarily.  A single track with small stations suggests a branch line (which is why I think the loco shed should be a goods shed, because the locos would be kept at the junction or the terminus to work the first train of the day and terminate the last), and a tank loco is probable.  Even if a small tender loco (Dean Goods, 2251) is used, no great speed is involved and the loco can run tender first.  

 

But, without a passing loop to run the loco around, you will have to pick it up off the track to put it on the other end of the train anyway, as well as doing the same to the brake van, so if you were to imagine that there was a turntable at the imagined terminus, you can turn the loco if you like.  I'd suggest having a hidden section under the hill accessible from the side to act as a basic fiddle yard where this sort of thing can be done, perhaps between the level crossing and. the halt.  Before anyone pulls me up on this, I know you wouldn't have a level crossing directly in front of a tunnel entrance...

 

BTW, I'd avoid the curved point that accesses the halt siding if I were you; curved points are notorious for causing running and pickup problems for various reasons.  A left hand normal turnout at the left end of the halt will do the job better.  OTOH, this is a test layout and you may want to present your locos with problems, I mean challenges, that they have to be set up to overcome...

[petejones]

I think I can get away with the shed being here as when I was reading about the Whitland and Cardigan Railway recently, the trains ran from Whitland to Crymmych Arms originally, but the locos were shedded at Llanfalteg, the station one up from Whitland.