My new layout design, any thoughts?

[BrightHelmStone]

Hi there,

I have been working on a new layout using Scarm software (got on well with Scarm, works well) for some weeks. The basic design came from the DefiniteC from freetrackplans.com. (http://www.freetrackplans.com/939-DefiniteC.php). Using Peco OO code 100.

It has a single level lower board, 3.66 x 2.40 metres. An upper partial board width 1.22metres.

It's an ambious project and I fully anticipate it taking a considerable time to complete. I have construction a simpler two loop layout for my son before, now it's Daddy's time! (son is most excited).

I have increased the size as the original design had too steep gradients. I have managed to keep the maximum gradient to 1:42 (2.40%), and that on a long straight. All the gradient start and ends are eased at a lower gradient. The tightest radius is R2. Most curves are eased using 1xR4 -> 1xR3 -> multiple R2's.

I have tried to make the two goods/shunting areas using ideas posted on this site. Incorporating headshunts, for engine movement and main line safety.

I intend to use Gaugemaster Prodigy DCC. There will be reverse loop modules for the upper and lower dumbbells. The upper dumbbell is not very prototypical. I wanted loops for continuous running but tried to avoid the sight of trains chasing their tails. My son then will be able to have a play.

There are some facing points which are not prototypical. Forgive me!, if there are any suggestions how some of these can be avoided - that would be helpful.

I will make a decision on a centre access hole later, when trains are up and running. I will design the underneath woodwork to accommodate this - if needed.

I plan to lay the lower level loop and goods yard first to get things rolling and then add the gradient and upper level later.

I would appreciate your input. Any suggestions welcome.

[ITG]

As a novice modeller who has made numerous mistakes in the last 12 months, but still found the whole thing a positive learning experience with much satisfaction, may I say it seems you may have made a similar mistake to one of mine. That is, a point in a hidden (lower level) section of track. I tried to incorporate a reversing loop and a simple hidden loop for train storage, which together meant 3 points in a tunnel, below an upper level terminus.

Let’s  just say I now fully appreciate why many modellers see this as a no-no. That said, some of my other improvement opportunities/learning experiences would also be my baseboard construction and track laying (both not perfect), but I have had occasional problems with smooth running on these hidden points - sometimes due to operator error. It has proved a very challenging task then to rescue stalled/derailed trains.

 

good luck.

Edited February 11, 2020 by ITG
Grammar

[DCB]

It looks good for a dad and lad layout.   Not exactly suitable for strictly accurate operation but I had something similar to your top station and return loop once aged 9 and it was fun 

You can't get your hands in to prod or re rail trains unless you use a very thin upper baseboard or cut access holes.  Might be better to put the tunnel point out in the open.   Top station needs shunting/ pilot loco to release incoming loco from the buffer stops.

Bottom station goods run round is painfully short as is the headshunt. very tedious to shunt I would redesign that yard , 

  I don't see the point of the crossover at mid Right.    See Doodle

Passenger trains can only access the through station while running clockwise.    A crossover just out of the tunnel from outer to middle would fix this. 

Electrics, If wired for DC  the last two points on the top  bit should be yellow to match the rising tracks not red, so a train can run round while another shunts the station

 

[TonyMay]

 

3 hours ago, ITG said:

As a novice modeller who has made numerous mistakes in the last 12 months, but still found the whole thing a positive learning experience with much satisfaction, may I say it seems you may have made a similar mistake to one of mine. That is, a point in a hidden (lower level) section of track. I tried to incorporate a reversing loop and a simple hidden loop for train storage, which together meant 3 points in a tunnel, below an upper level terminus.

Let’s  just say I now fully appreciate why many modellers see this as a no-no. That said, some of my other improvement opportunities/learning experiences would also be my baseboard construction and track laying (both not perfect), but I have had occasional problems with smooth running on these hidden points - sometimes due to operator error. It has proved a very challenging task then to rescue stalled/derailed trains.

 

good luck.

 

The point and the outermost blue line can simply be removed.

[Nearholmer]

Is it going to be on the floor, and/or mega-sturdy so that you can climb on it?

 

If not, it really is going to need a centre access, even if you can get all the way round it.

[BrightHelmStone]

Thank you for all your comments and recommendations. Including the time David has taken to show recommendations in a doodle.

I intend to use DCC. The colours were only to split into sections, not to indicate wiring design. Thought it would help you make your comments.

 

Coming back on the comments.

 

ACCESS

I have the advantage of space, so will be able to walk around all sides.

I have attached a better screenshot of the top board,  it will be open,  will only have maybe one tunnel port etc. I am thinking that the back edge could fold down to allow access. See photo.

So access to the hidden point, rerailers and prodding should be possible.

That being said, I do take on board comments about access being difficult. I have not counted out the option of a centre access hole. Either permanent or a scenic'ed 'drain cover'. I aim to build the board supports and wiring with this in mind.

 

LOWER SHUNTING AREA

I can see the logic of moving this to allow lengthening. I will redesign to allow this.

 

GRADIENT

See Gradient screenshot attached. I aim the top board to be 9mm ply. The upper board track height is 90mm. Which leaves about 80mm 'head height' underneath. Does this makes sense?    80mm seems just OK for access. Bearing in mind I was trying to keep the top board low to allow gradient as shallow as possible.

 

MAIN LINE CROSSOVERS

I will remove the right edge crossover,  include a crossover at top as in doodle. Swapping crossover position will allow for the gradient to remain at 1:30 (crossover points will be flat, not inclined).

 

As ever, I welcome your thoughts.

[Zomboid]

You'd still benefit from a hole in the board to give access to both shunting areas without leaning over the main lines.

 

Looks quite a bit like one of those Hornby catalogue layouts that most of us will have obsessed over. Probably plenty of fun to be had.

[TonyMay]

You say you have space, but haven't defined exactly what space you have.  In most cases, a doughnut shaped layout with access in the middle and a lift-out section to allow access is better than one shaped like a piece of toast without a hole in the middle.

 

t that much bigger

for example is really no