Learning fast through mistakes - now thinking about new layout

[ITG]

After returning too this hobby after a gap of 50 years (teenager then – retired now!), I’ve spent 15 months on what I’ll call my first layout (dear old dad did most of the work all those years ago, I now realise). Trying to find the balance between ‘keep it simple’ and having enough operational interest has clearly been a struggle, as I’ve hopelessly veered towards the latter at the expense of the former!

But I actually don’t mind that I’ve made mistakes along the way, as boy, have I learnt a lot! I don’t even mind that some of those mistakes now lead me to realise that this (not yet finished) layout will only have a short life, as I now seek to put these learning experiences to use in version 2.

Even though this layout is up and running fairly effectively, I feel I have to start again soon for the following reasons:

1.       I now realise trying to have the layout I’m aiming for, in a room that tries to double as an office ends up compromising on both. (see room details below)

2.       I wish I hadn’t used Sundeala for the baseboard, as despite my best efforts, it has sagged in a couple of places, causing pain. In any case, the weakest and least enjoyable part of my skill set is definitely woodworking. A professionally made baseboard beckons.

3.       I miscalculated the clearance required for access under a high-level station, to reach tracks below when trouble occurs.

4.       I mixed a few things, changing as I went along, when I realised which I preferred. For example, from insulfrog to electrofrog points, and from solenoid uncoupling devices to servos. I’d like to standardise.

5.       I didn’t allow sufficient track ‘storage’ space for the locos and rolling stock which I have accumulated quickly, whether that is sidings, hidden storage loops, or any kind of fiddle yard. This could mostly be remedied by a set of storage/staging loops off scene.

What do I want to keep?

a)       Staying in the current layout room, as other options wouldn’t get domestic planning permission.

b)      Staying with OO DCC, and re-using most of the track I already have. I accept the size limitations mean I will need to have tight radii, hence I have used a mixture of Streamline and Settrack (min 2nd radius). Trains of 3 coaches (or equivalent lengths for goods wagons) are also necessary.

c)       The current track layout incorporates a 3-platform terminus, with small goods yard and loco facility; a small through station with bay and goods sidings; a reversing loop and a continuous run (actually two, although disguised so as not to appear as a double track oval). Although probably to a different track plan, I’d like to try to work these features in again, although if anything has to go, I’d prefer it was the double track.

The room is 11’ 4” x 6’ 6”, and the current layout uses 7’ x 6’ 6” of that, with an operating well.  But, apart from the space required for the opening door in one corner, (cannot reverse due to 2 other doors immediately outside the room), I now with to use more (ie all) space. See room layout below.

My immediate dilemma, and need to learn yet more from the helpful folk on this forum, is basically where do I put what?

·       The terminus station (I’m thinking along the long wall opposite the door? the actual track plan is still to come)

·       Small through station ( or maybe a mini terminus)

·       The staging yard ( I favour the idea of loops with points, each (or most) able to accommodate 3 coaches plus tender loco, say 4’?) As I will probably operate from a centre well, would this fiddle yard be best sited along the diagonal board across the door area, although length for the 4 or 5 roads I’d like, means it would have to bend around the corner onto the shorter long wall)

·       The reversing loop seems to me to best be an ‘S’ shape across the room from north to south, but ideas welcome.

 

[Aire Head]

I guess it depends what you want to do. Your space is a similar size to my planned project and I found that with what I wanted to run and what I wanted to portray I could fit a goods yard and the suggestion of a station in.

 

My first questions would be,

 

1) is this a model railway or a trainset - there isn't a wrong answer but it will affect the design process

 

2) what do you want to run - goods or passenger? Large or small?

 

3) What can you compromise on if you need to

 

Good luck!

Edited February 18, 2020 by Aire Head

[ITG]

Well, AH, questions I’ve pondered.

1. I’d like to think I’m midway between. I’m not precious about era, prototype, etc, but loosely 50/60s - ish with steam, and green and blue diesels. As I said, I’d like to do more than just watch trains go round, so shunting facilities are on the wish list. I don’t mind the “loadsa tracks” look, as I think I need to accommodate that to fit in the features I want for operating.

2. Goods and passenger but I accept the limitations, as I said, to 3 coach trains. My largest locos are 4-6-0 Patriot and Class 40 diesel.

3. If I had to compromise, as I said, losing the second continuous track, and next on the hit list might be the small through station. 

Hope that might help.

[Harlequin]

Why do you need a terminus?

 

If you used the long side of the room for a big-ish double-track through station you could still terminate some trains there. You can have terminal sidings or bays as well specifically for that purpose.

 

Then you wouldn't need the separate small through station at all, or the multi-level design (which will be very difficult in the space you've got) or the reversing loop which inconveniently crosses the operating well...

 

Fiddle yard along the opposite side, probably partly crossing the doorway in some form.

 

Your operating well needs to be bigger than shown.

 

P.S. I expect Crewlisle will be along shortly...

 

[ITG]

Harlequin,

comments appreciated. I’ll try to answer.

i like the operational aspects of terminating arrivals, running round, changing locos, and departures. I understand what you’re saying is I could do all that at a through station. What about if I had a large (by my standards) through station, but then maybe a (very) small branch line?

I currently have a dual level layout, albeit a 3% gradient on curves is proving to be a challenge for some locos (although I have still to install magnets as per DCC Concepts Powerbase. Metal plates under gradient already laid)

 

point about operating well is understood. Minimum 2feet wide?

[Dzine]

Hi ITG,  Minimum space operating well very much depends on your waistline!   With small wells it's very easy to damage scenery and stock near the edges.   How near are you to York?  I'll be at the Ebor show this coming weekend with my free Layout Planning and Design clinic, would love to help if you can make it.  Kind regards Paul

[ITG]

Thanks for the offer DZ.  My other passion is rugby so cannot stray far from TV this Six Nations weekend! (BTW, in Peterborough)

As a recent beneficiary of the Healthy Eating Low Carb programme, my waistline is diminishing. Current well is 2’ square, but I normally stand outside layout to operate. The well is really for access for building and maintenance.

Future layout and space utilisation may mean different.

Edited February 18, 2020 by ITG

[DCB]

That operating area is very tight.   There isn't really enough space for all your requirements.   Do you operate from by the door?  I used to when In had a layout in a pretty similar room.   I can't see the high level terminus over a continuous run working without 1 in 36 ish gradients which with DCC will mean at best Power Base and at worst stupidly short trains. I stuff the decoder space with lead and use DC.   A reverse loop might just squeeze in a corner but even 2nd radius its still a big beast at 36/38" diameter.   That said a biggish terminus is fun to operate, especially when ECS and light loco moves are needed.   On the other hand a double track continuous run is handy for running in new locos or just watching trains go by.   Any chance of getting a bigger room?

 

[Aire Head]

2 hours ago, ITG said:

Harlequin,

comments appreciated. I’ll try to answer.

i like the operational aspects of terminating arrivals, running round, changing locos, and departures. I understand what you’re saying is I could do all that at a through station. What about if I had a large (by my standards) through station, but then maybe a (very) small branch line?

I currently have a dual level layout, albeit a 3% gradient on curves is proving to be a challenge for some locos (although I have still to install magnets as per DCC Concepts Powerbase. Metal plates under gradient already laid)

 

point about operating well is understood. Minimum 2feet wide?

 

Why not do an intermediate station?  Using my region of interest something like Ilkley or Skipton has a through line while also dealing with terminating local services.

 

Ive linked below to my thread showing what i managed to come up with in 8' by 8'9, I am aiming to run larger trains but it should hopefully give you an idea what can be done with your space.

 

Even better than that is I'd check out @halsey thread as I feel he has acheived more of what you would be looking for.

 

 

[ITG]

Plenty of food for thought so far.

I am grateful that I am not yet anywhere near the action stage on this idea, because the current layout (learning project that it is , or has become) is still up and running. That forces/gives plenty of time for thinking.

Given in the current baseboard size of 7’ x 6’6”, I have somehow contrived to fit a terminus, small through station twin continuous tracks and a reverse loop, I am still hoping to recreate similar features in what will be an expanded space. 

But I'm wondering instead of trying to go around the perimeter of the room, as indicated by the room plan at start of this thread, would I be better to keep the ‘circular’ part of the layout to the right of the door (that’s where the current layout sits) and instead use the part of the long wall opposite the door to site the (possibly higher level) terminus. Meaning I’d end up with an L with the foot of it being around 7’x6’6”, and the leg being around 4’x2’6”. Total length along the wall would then be the full 11’ or so.

if I am to retain a reverse loop, then maybe it needs to align along the long wall (possibly partly below the terminus) instead of at right angles across the mid-room area.

As thoughts come in from either myself, or you wonderfully constructive commenters, I will eventually draw ideas together on a plan(s), but at present, I’m finding it helpful to retain mental reflections , standing just looking at the room and imagining........

 

Edited February 20, 2020 by ITG

[Chimer]

How about a fairly traditional terminus to fiddle yard arrangement, but with a through line (single or double track) past the terminus completing a circuit to the other end of the FY?  Think (e.g) Manchester Piccadilly with the suburban platform lines going through to Oxford Road (but in a smaller scale obvs ).  Or the extension could theoretically be to a harbour station, docks, or some industrial complex.  Then you could usually run "properly", with only limited traffic going past the terminus on the through line, but with the option of letting anything run continuously when you want / need it to.

 

I would join others in warning against gradients …. good luck!

[ITG]

I’ve been doodling around and have a few developing options beginning to take shape, but I have a specific question (maybe best as a new thread, but I’ll try here first).

I keep reading of the unreliability / poor running of Peco set track curved points. I have 4 on the existing layout (one pair in a curved crossover, the other pair at either end of a passing loop) and these haven’t been any trouble. That said, I had one elsewhere, which did hiccup, but as I had baseboard level issues, I thought it was that. I replaced it with a straight point, and that was ok.

I’d like to re-use these curved points in my new thinking, so my question is - what are people’s eeriences of them? What exactly is the issue? Are the Streamline curved points (larger I know) better?

thanks

Ian

[Zomboid]

I'd suggest that your experiences are probably the most important. So long as you lift them without damaging them, there's no reason I can think of to expect different performance to that which you have already had from the points you presently own.

Edited February 23, 2020 by Zomboid

[wasdavetheroad]

If you have the money try and get permission to replace the door either with one opening outwards or one of those new folding door that are half the width. Should gain you at least 6 inches in the staging yard area

[ITG]

I’ve thought about reversing the door, but immediately outside the room, there are 2 more doors, one either side, in a hallway corridor only the width of a door. So having the door reversed would create corridor congestion which would affect areas outside the railway room, in contravention of household planning permissions.

a bifold door would gain a little space but in some ways, having entry space as you walk in the room (as afforded by the full door opening) is no bad thing. So haven’t ruled bifold out, but I’m favouring the idea of something like a 8’x6’6” circular, with terminus (or terminus--through)  extending into the 3’ leg opposite the door. So the door issue is not such a factor.

 

As I said earlier, because I now have a layout up and running, I am not experiencing the hunger/drive/urgency which I felt previously, to get this new creation going, That to me is a blessing, as I can ponder and consider much more, which means I’m still at the nothing ruled in, nothing ruled out stage.  That makes forum input all the more worthwhile. Thank you.

Edited February 23, 2020 by ITG

[Jeff Smith]

How important to you is continuous roundy operation.  My first layouts were terminus to fiddle yard layouts.  A few years I got interested in US On30 and built a 4x8 layout.  Although I could shunt the station/goods area and it had a loop, I got bored fairly quickly of watching trains go by and the need for curves (18" radius) both ends compromised the space.

 

With only an 11ft wall the curves both ends will similarly restrict your station area.  You say terminus operation interests you so my suggestion would be to build  U shaped layout modelled on the GWR Bodmin arrangement.  Bodmin is an intermediate station but in a terminus configuration.  Trains arrive from the main line then have to run round to continue along the branch.  Goods trains could shunt the yard before continuing.  In your room the station would be on the left with the main line and branch coming round from the fiddle yards separated somewhat scenically.  You could either have a common fiddle yard or two separate ones.  This would also give you some room for a small modelling bench between the door and the station end.  Its surprising how much you can get into an 18" wide board.

[Jeff Smith]

You didn't mention layout height.  If you are prepared and able to stand to operate there are a number of benefits to having the track just below eye level.  The viewing angle is more prototypical and you can leave space below for a modelling bench, desk, storage, etc.  I think the best way is to build the layout in modular form so you can work on boards on a bench then mount them on a shelf.

Edited February 23, 2020 by Jeff Smith

[ITG]

Thanks Jeff.

I still fancy a roundy. For 99% of the time, the only operator will be me, and I’d like to have a train circling, whilst shunting etc. But as I say, still thinking things through.

 

There’s a few considerations re height. Current board is a little over a metre high, but future board will have to consider....

1. It’s has to be high enough to clear a radiator, which tbh, it would be anyway.

2. There’s a window on the long wall, but I reckon whatever I do, I’m effectively going to have to go across the window part way up (as it does now). But as I won’t be able to open it easily anyway, the insert of the (raised up to baseboard level) window sill may allow a little cameo scene.

3. Domestic management insisted that I retain various storage units below the baseboard, eg a sideboard, shelf unit etc. Not a bad idea, and I mounted the existing baseboard on a wall-batten and adjustable kitchen unit legs standing about 10cm above and on top of these storage units. Worked well apart from it didn’t leave much access space if I then needed to access under-board wiring etc. Units are large enough to be not very mobile. So, for that reason alone, I may make the board higher this time.

 

As you suggest, I plan to do woodwork, & lay and wire track in garage, before moving boards in to railway room. 

[Jeff Smith]

Happy to make some suggestions.  I would always favour modular construction as the wiring etc is much easier with the board on edge.  Also you can exhibit it as a demo, even just one board, and of course you can take it with you if you move house.....

 

The attached photos show a 3x1 single line board using very lightweight construction.  All one eighth ply and hardboard with 1"x1" strengtheners.  This is quite robust and over 30 years old and travelled across the pond and three house moves.  You may not be ready to move away from flat top boards but it does save a lot of weight and allow the 'railway in the landscape' look with contours above and below rail level.

[ITG]

As I said before, I’ve been doodling. You may remember (when I opened this thread) that I said my current (7’ x 6’6”) layout had various features which I hoped to recreate, ie double track continuous running, reverse loop, terminus station with loco facilities and goods yard, and small station. Although there have been mistakes made in the construction of this layout, for me they’ve been around construction and consistency, rather than design of what works for, and amuses, me.

So, given my plan was to expand to fill all/more of the 11’4” x 6’6” room, in theory I felt my aspiration should be to retain (although in a start all over again sense) and develop, rather than reduce.

So here is where I am at. On the plan shown, I have separated out and excluded (for time being) the high level station, to attach initially only the lower level track, and the gradient rising to the aforementioned station. Note that my learning curve on Anyrail means that there are some slight misalignment issues (not disconnects, but just inaccurate curves or track spacings). I have tried to use much of what I already have in terms of track (mix of Streamline and Settrack), with a minimum 2nd radius.

For those who have previously responded on this thread, please don’t think its gone in one ear and out of the other. I have pondered muchly, but I do feel comfortable having the two levels, to allow the operational flexibility/complexity I’m after.

By way of explanation,

A = where the rising gradient (around 1.5%) leads into the upper level terminus (not shown - overall size could be 11' x 2'6"). The tracks below this upper level terminus would be on a narrow shelf rather than a full width board, to allow easier access for problems underneath the upper board. Note both the gradient and the accessibility are aimed for improvements on the current layout.

 

B to C = the staging yard, with a shared up/down central loop. This whole area will not be for fiddling per se, but for holding/sequencing, with a couple of loco spurs. I am thinking of it being covered by a removable high level urban area. The staging yard previously was a single loop, in an inaccessible location, so again, I am getting an improvement here.

 

D = small branch station with run-round loop and small goods facility. The buildings for this station may be either at the higher level above the staging yard, with steps/lift for passengers, and/or such as goods facilities could be low relief below the retaining wall in front of the staging yard.

 

E = where the gradient on the single line to terminus starts. According to Anyrail, all the vertical clearances work.

 

F = a possible (removable) bridge spanning the well. The second track on this is a dummy siding, as it just ends under the high level area. Just a way of hiding a train/rolling stock in full view.

 

I am aware the x-over on the right is facing (rule 1?) but I think it makes sense (at least to me) for trains coming from high level terminus (after circling a number of times) to cross to inner track for some (a) to reach branch station at D or (b) to access reverse loop or (c) to enter staging yard the ‘wrong way’.

The grey shaded areas are operating/access ‘wells’; the bottom left triangle is to allow the door opening inwards and the centre one shown as being at least 2’ wide.

I will post my evolving thinking on the upper level terminus in due course, but I’m keen to first get feedback/thoughts on this part of the plan. Running fully prototypically is not my top priority, and I am accepting of the need for 2nd/3rd radius curves (in any case set track to re-use) and 3 coach trains.

Once I’ve finally settled – hopefully with your help – on this basic plan, I plan to go through it again to see if its possible to ease any curves  or use larger radius points. On the current layout, I started using Set Track points, then half way through construction, switched to SL points of varying radius. I may retain ST points for use in the staging yard, as not really had any problems with insulfrogs.

So, fire away. Help me stand back and review please. But do bear in mind where I’m coming from on this. Fun, amusement and learning (all in both the journey and the destination) are what I’m after. Absolute authenticity or prototypicality are less important to me.

Edited February 27, 2020 by ITG

[ITG]

I have now developed a few variations on the above theme, with basically the same overall plan, but with changes to the lower station as I’ve now incorporated it as a through station to be part of the reverse loop, and changed the ‘dummy’ siding at F to a passing loop. That also then allows a couple of short sidings to lead off right, along the edge of the RHS well. That may allow the edge of the well itself to be a dockside?

 

So the lower terminus station as was then disappears.

Still got to think about the upper station, which with throat, goods and loco facilities and some scenic treatment , would be anything up to 11’4” x 2’6”.

 

But my thoughts have turned to the baseboard, particularly the dual level area. In a nutshell, this would require, a shelf of some 250mm for the 3 tracks running along the wall, with the upper board surface being 100mm above it. (Gradients work ok).  Assuming 9mm ply, that leaves 91mm, and I guess I need to allow 75mm for train height on track. The maths suggest only 16mm for bracing.  I am thinking that with the lower board only being some 250mm, there would still be reasonable access for derailments or track cleaning. 

Obviously the remainder of the bracing on the upper board could be heavier duty, but what do folk suggest/use to stabilise/strengthen in these circumstances, for that long thin strip of the upper board? Or, if the upper board were MDF, would I get away with no cross-bracing along that length, so close to the wall? Dotted line on plan below shows upper board edge.

.

Edited March 3, 2020 by ITG

[ITG]

Well, still tweaking Anyrail plans. Now lost count of how many versions of plans I have, but I see that as no bad thing. Hopefully more  - evolving and developing - plans means less mistakes and shortfalls when it comes to making baseboards and laying track. In my previous postings, I have outlined my thinking and wish list, and whilst that has been refined, there's not a lot of change in my fundamentals - which I accept may lead to what some would see as 'unprototypical' to one degree or another. I'm using Streamline (including all points) with some Set Track pieces (a) because I have them & (b) they make the (mostly hidden) curves more straightforward. 

 

Anyway, I'm tinkering with the station. The plan context is that it is a terminus station handling passenger/goods traffic (train length limitations excepted) on a board approx 11'4" x 2'6". There is a 'branch line' which is there to provide an upper level continuous run through platform 1, running under a higher level station building/concourse. (thanks - the idea came from this forum). I foresee that mostly the station will function as a terminus. The gap between the northern track and the baseboard edge will be road/low relief buildings. At this stage, its the overall plan I'm looking at - when it comes to fine-tuning, I can always consider curving it slightly or making it less parallel, for aesthetic reasons.

Point X on the plan is the single track main line exit from the station which falls with a 2% gradient around the room perimeter to a 5-loop staging yard and reverse loop, integrated into a lower level continuous run. Part of this lower area runs under the terminus. The lower area is mostly on a 12" (max) wide board, which would allow for access by reaching up.

 

So I can have two roundie trains running in each of upper & lower level circuits whilst marshalling trains in the goods yard etc. Like most people, I guess, I have too many diesel and steam locos (50/60/70s era) and too much associated rolling stock - hence the 5 storage loops and the amount of station sidings/platforms.

 

I'd be grateful for any feedback on the station, particularly around:

1. could I/should I seek to avoid the short length where main/branch lines converge in the station throat? if better to keep them separate, any idea how to do that in available space?
2. the loco facilities are accessed off the branch approach - any other options?
3. the goods yard access run-round loop seems a little tight - can anyone see how to lengthen that a little?
4. anything else?

Thanks in advance.

Ian

 

[DCB]

You lost me plan wise. I don't see how the Feb 27 plan fits with the Mar 31 plan.

However Feb 27 looks very American the way the yard is arranged, as does Mar 31 to be honest. Looks like Feb 27 is set up for right hand running.  You have a return loop. Why not stick with a plain terminus upstairs with a decent size goods yard and let two trains circulate the lower level while you shunt the top and are ready to send a train out and receive one back. Works for me and I work Terminus to round and round to FY. Four platforms a bit OTT for single track terminus, I know Highbridge (?) S&D had five but three were never used.

B could become a passenger station. You could turn back local passengers there, you don't need a dead end to turn a passenger train around. 

[ITG]

David,

thanks for reply. The Feb 27 overall plan has evolved a little. Not dead, but shuffled in my planning options. 

 

Could you expand a little on why the yard looks American, although I’m not sure if you’re referring to GY or FY? Incidentally, I called it a staging yard rather then FY as I don’t really  want to be handling stock, and with the reverse loop, I don’t have to, per se. If you mean FY, I have now simplified to a more conventional single-track entry to 5 parallel loops, with a fan at each end, and is located more to the bottom of the room, and curving partly around the diagonal corner. This rework of the FY could of course apply also to your suggestion of a double-track round and round at lower level.

 

That lower side of room can only really be 8’ long, before the diagonal across the door. Taking into account the bends and point fans at each end, makes it virtually inevitable that the FY will need to expand into that diagonal board, which then may limit space for your suggestion of a station there. Particularly, as I don’t want to squeeze the operating space (and capability to reach locations) which is already at limits, I think?

One of the reasons I was kind of avoiding a straightforward double track main line was the fact that space-wise I found it difficult to avoid the reverse loop only connecting to the inner circuit on both ends (without it fixing the RL itself in such a way that it created a 3’ wide block of baseboard in a corner - tricky  to reach across.). That meant, at least to my eye, that I would have to have wrong-road running to get a train turned on journey to/from terminus. Hence, even in my earlier incarnation, I was not seeing it as twin track, more two single tracks that happened to run nearly parallel for a distance. (Imagination is a wonderful thing) .

 

Now I eagerly and hopefully await ideas as to how to blend all this thinking into a workable layout.

 

 

[Harlequin]

I have to say, it seems to be a bit confused! Why not think of it as a through station with a junction and some bays for terminating specific traffic? Then you would be on more familiar, prototypical territory.

 

It also feels like there's too much track in every area to me.

 

Maybe you could abandon platform 4 as a platform and use it for the goods loop/headshunt instead - to both simplify the plan and make the headshunt longer. And could you curve the goods yard around inside the end curve - i.e. make the station L shaped to gain some extra length?

 

Use the P2/P3 loop to run round your goods, perhaps.  (So you wouldn't be able to leave a train running on the top circuit while you run round a goods train but having done that the ex-P4 headshunt should be long enough to shunt the yard.

 

And maybe make P2 be the through line and P1 just be a bay for terminating traffic?

 

Edit: P.S. The shed area would have just one junction with the main line and a splay out from there. (Two roads would be plenty. Three if you really need it.)

Edited March 31, 2020 by Harlequin