Wagon works layout

[iclose]

Having recently seen a drone photograph of WE Davis wagon works it has given me an idea for a new layout.  There is a line that runs past the WE Davis site that is at the bottom of a rock face with the works at the top. As the space for my layout is restricted and I struggle to have a continuous loop with room for decent length storage sidings my idea is to have an end to end layout but with the storage yards on top of each other at the back with the line connecting them running across the front to f the layout with the wagon works between the main line and the storage yards. Track plan below showing roughly what I want . My idea is to have a 6 inch hight difference between the storage yards which would give the main line running between them a gradient of 1 in 20  or possibly 1 in 24 if I can include the curve at the end in the gradient  alternatively I could have a helix at on end and increase the high difference between the 2 levels and have the wagon works and the main line on the same level. Has anyone built a layout like this? Is it a sensible ideas? Any thoughts and comment gratefully received.  

 

 

davis 2.pdf

[Dungrange]

I don't see anything wrong with the concept of an end to end layout with the fiddle yards one above the other, but I'm not sure about the suggested gradient of 1:20 or even 1:24 (especially not if that gradient is also maintained round the curves).  Gradients that are that steep tend limit you to running shorter trains, which kind of defeats the reason behind your plan - to operate decent length trains.

 

I think you need to conduct some tests with the locomotives you have to see what sort of load they care capable of pulling up the gradients you envisage before you commit to the plan too heavily.

[mdvle]

What's the layout size? (if it is 12" squares that works out to 4'x20' which seems very generous, but if it is 6" squares then a 2'x10' with continous running and multiple fiddle yards seem a bit too ambitious because amongst other issues your fiddle yards and wagon works are going to be fighting for the same space.

[DCB]

Looks interesting. I assume its 20 X 4 ft but 10 X 2 sounds like fun.    There is a layout in a Newton Abbott model shop, Bekra Models? in 00 with 12 " radius curvs and a Class 47 running last time I was there, add in 1 in 24 grades and that could be real run.

 

Back to 20 X 4  DCC, and Steam forget it. It won't work. Thev nay grup.  Use Diesels with traction tyres or go DC     DC, rip the DCC gubbins out of the locos, strip out the extra draggy pickups and fill the space with lead and you're in business. That or use cast whitemetal or die cast metal bodies.   I reckon putting the upper level above the lower with minimum clearance, put the strength of the upper above the surface not below, say 4" and you can get away with nearer 1 in 60.    I would use a reverse loop and holding sidings on the low level.  See doodle. I think I would go for a much shorter run round, 5/6 60 ft coaches, and have the platforms much nearer level.

You might need brakes on the brake vans!  But at least its different and not some B awful much worse rendition of minories.  Great Fun. 

[iclose]

The layout is 18' long, 6'by 4' at one end and 4' by 4' at the other with and 8' by 3'6" section in the middle. Its along one wall of a narrow room.  Currently have a continuous run double track with storage sidings at the back and a station with a small engineers yard at the front. But the storage sidings are limited in length on the inside loop.  Will be modern diesels and DCC controlled. 

Edited December 7, 2019 by iclose

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

13 hours ago, iclose said:

... My idea is to have a 6 inch height difference between the storage yards ...

That's a major difficulty, you simply won't be able to access the storage roads behind the train that's furthest forward. So if you want to be able to rearrange trains in the storage yard, you effectively only have the single front road to work on.

 

If ever there was a layout plan requiring a vertical rising and falling storage system, this is it. Some modellers have achieved this (there is a thread somewhere, probably linked to the 'Nelevator' product) but be warned, it is ambitious engineering for 4mm scale (significant moving mass, and reliable precise alignment of the rails both ends of a lengthy moving structure; needs both a good design and accurate build).

[iclose]

There won't be any need to re arrange trains in the storage yards. I use Kadee's so the plan would be to put uncoupling magnets at the end of the storage roads to uncouple the loco and couple one up to the other end to bring it out again. The top deck would be made so it could be lifted off if access to the lower level is needed. Any changes of stock etc would be done in the wagon works sidings. I have considered a vertical storage system in the past but decided it would be far to complicated.

 

[iclose]

9 hours ago, DavidCBroad said:

   I would use a reverse loop and holding sidings on the low level. 

 

 I had considered a reversing loop but the storage sidings would be no longer than what I have now. The ideal of the storage yards one above the other is to allow longer storage sidings so I can have more long freight trains. The wagon repair depot will give plenty of scope for shunting as well as running long trains on the main line going past it.

[mdvle]

9 hours ago, iclose said:

The layout is 18' long, 6'by 4' at one end and 4' by 4' at the other with and 8' by 3'6" section in the middle. Its along one wall of a narrow room.  Currently have a continuous run double track with storage sidings at the back and a station with a small engineers yard at the front. But the storage sidings are limited in length on the inside loop.  Will be modern diesels and DCC controlled. 

 

Well, your first (and most significant problem) is that your drawing is 4'x20' when you say the space is 4'x18'.  It really is important to use correct dimensions on your drawings otherwise you risk wasting a lot of time coming up with something that works and you like only to discover it doesn't fit the physical space.

 

The next question then is just how much do you intend to do beyond laying track and running trains?  If you plan to do scenery and spend time making appropriate buildings then reaching over that stuff to access those fiddle yards is asking for trouble - 4' (or even 3'6") is a long reach, add in possibility of having to go into a hollow for a lower level fiddle yard, and you are simply asking for repeatedly damaging any scenic work you do.

 

Saying you won't need to access the fiddle yards thanks to Kadee couplers and magnets is likely wishful thinking - there is always the danger of derailments are troublesome track over time.

 

So the obvious question is does it have to be on only one wall?  The best solution would be to split the layout and use removable (if necessary) end sections to access both walls if at all possible.

[iclose]

The drawing was done quickly to help explain my idea it wasn't done to the exact scale. It would be a rebuild of an existing layout so I know it will fit. The only space available is 4' along one wall ideally I would make the layout wider and have a gap in the middle between the storage yard and the scenic section.  Apart from the main line and the rock face behind it the rest of the scenery will be removable to access the lower storage yard to minimise damage.  What I really want to know is if the gradient will work, if having the storage yards one above other is practical and if anyone has built a similar layout did it work.

 

[mdvle]

5 hours ago, iclose said:

The drawing was done quickly to help explain my idea it wasn't done to the exact scale.

 

When you ask other people to use some of their time to provide advice it is a reasonable expectation by those giving their time that the person asking for help provide accurate information.  In a Layout & Track Planning forum, that is going to be accurate dimensions/drawings.

 

If you can't be bothered to spend the time to provide an accurate drawing, why should anyone else provide time to help you?

 

5 hours ago, iclose said:

What I really want to know is if the gradient will work, if having the storage yards one above other is practical and if anyone has built a similar layout did it work.

 

Short answers:

 

gradient will work - we don't know.  As advised in the first reply you are simply going to have to rig something up and try with your equipment.  Generally speaking the gradient is too steep but length of train, the specific engines being used, how free rolling the freight wagons are, etc. will all vary depending on the models bought.  It is possible (for example, short train, 2 locos, getting lucky) that you can exceed what is normally acceptable but the only way to find out is to test what you have.

 

stacked storage yards - works when there is easy access, which you don't have.  The consensus I expect would be what you are planning is a bad idea, but you are more than welcome to ignore the advice and attempt it anyway.  Just consider that there is nothing more discouraging than having to tear apart half or more of a layout to deal with a derailment or electrical fault.  That is why hidden track in general, never mind stacked storage yards 3 to 4 feet behind a layout, is a bad idea.

[DCB]

I don't think the concept is viable if you want to do any re marshalling on the lower level.   I had a round the room one and a quarter times layout in an approx 11 foot square room with the low level fiddle yard under the terminus and the low level yard was a pig to operate  even with open access,  due to limited clearance which was around 6" with upper tracks 8" above the lower.   

  I think you either need my suggested return loop or a helix on the Lower level maybe dropping three complete turns at 12 ft per turn giving 12" track surface to track surface or 10"  clear giving more open access to the LL yard, Even then a return loop would make a lot of sense as you will otherwise spend a lot of time on your knees shunting.  Bear in mind with DCC you have to be able to see the loco to know which code to input, not always easy when you have duplicate locos. 

Currently with DC I can't see which loco I have on most of my trains in my hidden sidings. It's no big deal,  I set the road and apply power and away they go. I can see the train move to gauge the speed even though I can't read the loco number, name or even identify which class, Castle, King,Star, Saint, County, Hall, Grange Manor 28XX or 47XX, or even a 43XX,  There are about 25 of them in total.   I really don't know how I would cope with DCC.  Write down which loco is on which train maybe, like a signal man's log.

It is very noticeable how 50 years ago when I started reading the UK Railway Modeller and the like Hidden sidings hidden under stations with full track circuiting to show siding occupation were common while now  With UK DCC vast level non scenic fiddle yards seem to be the norm.   In the USA vast scenic fiddle yards were and are common so the issue does not generally arise, 

Edited December 8, 2019 by DavidCBroad

[mdvle]

On 06/12/2019 at 16:30, iclose said:

My idea is to have a 6 inch hight difference between the storage yards which would give the main line running between them a gradient of 1 in 20  or possibly 1 in 24 if I can include the curve at the end in the gradient 

 

Someone else asking a similar question made me remember a member on here trying what you propose (though not with reduced access).  He had 1 in 36 gradient and tested and found a lot of his locos failed:

 

 

 

[iclose]

Thanks for all the replies I have come to the conclusion the only way to have 2 levels is to uses a helix to get a decent height between the boards. I did some tests and 6" would be achievable and the loco could manage it with the length of trains I want to run but 3'6" is too far to reach with limited clearance it is difficult enough all on one level. I have decided that I need 12" between the boards which will give a gap of 10" if I use 2" X 1" for the baseboard frames. The only way to achieve this in the space I have available is to uses a helix. I have also decided to make the boards narrower so it is easier to reach the back. The idea now is to have a helix at one end with 2 reverse loops at the other, one on each level. and have a 10' by 2'6" section in the middle. I just need to come up with a track plan now and do some more research on building a helix.