2 Years and still no Track - New Layout

[Mike Greenwood]

Hi All, I am brand new to the forum and also new to the hobby, although the fires have been burning since I was about 9, over 30 years ago now :)

 

I am building a new OO Gauge DCC Model Railway (my first) in my garage.

The size of the board is 12 by 8 and it covers pretty much the entire garage.

There is an operating well in the centre of the layout approx 2 by 6, although this can be modified in size/shape.

 

Here's where it gets interesting, the entire board is on a hand cranked winch system I built and can be raised and lowered from the roof, meaning the garage is still usable for anything else.

 

The north and sound edges of the board (12 foot sections) almost touch the walls and so are not accessible at all from the sides.

The East end of the board is where the garage door is and so is accessible when the door to the garage is open.

The West end of the board is fully accessible.

 

(I'm thinking a plan or photos of this might be a good idea, I'll get that sorted...)

 

So I built and rebuilt the board 2 years ago and I have spend hours and hours trawling over track ideas and playing on Scarm and still have nothing on the board.

 

My problem is I want too much on the board and just can't seem to get a layout I am happy with.

 

Ok so what am I trying to get:

 

I don't mind about correct Era or realistic operation, I just want to see trains going around, mostly steam but some diesel too, none of those new fangled electric ones though!

What I would like:

Double main line (continuous loop)

Single or Double line for goods trains (continuous loop) these I would like to be fairly long trains.

Possible 4th/5th line for small steam trains (goods only) again ideally continuous loop.

 

I would like a station, this will have to be a through station because of the above, but I have toyed with a fake terminus in one corner for this. Passenger trains will be loco and 3 or 4 coaches (I have 6 for my longest but it won't fit on a layout like this) I would ideally like there to be 4 lines in the station as it means I can have a waiting train on each of the 2 lines and easily switch out. Potentially a couple of siding for engine sheds etc, no turntable though.

 

No fiddle yard required. (let's face it no space for one)

 

I would like some industry for the goods lines to have a purpose so with the station as well this means a fairly urban layout which is fine, although a bit of greenery somewhere would be nice, maybe a tunnel or bridge.

 

I have played around with the passenger lines being raised up, only 80mm or so, then the goods lines down at baseboard height, so they can cross each other for interest.

 

Ok I have waffled on for far too long, hopefully I have posted this in the correct place.

 

I would really love some help in getting my layout moving and would love some input from others.

 

I'll get some pictures on as soon as possible.

 

Thanks in advance for any advice you can give.

 

Mike

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Zomboid]

So what I would do for that is have two pairs of lines at different elevations, as you suggest. Along one side I'd put a higher board for about 8 feet of the length and the whole width of that side, and put a station there with at least 4 platforms. It'll basically be a set of visible storage loops for your passenger trains. If you want carriage sidings and loco storage then there's probably space.

The lower level loops can run underneath, and you can have a couple of storage loops there too (make sure you have enough elevation to get your hands in to retrieve derailments, and if you want to motorise the high level points with under-board motors that'll need space too.

 

On the other side of the board, the high level lines run along the back on an embankment, behind the industry which serves the low level pair.

 

The two ends are purely scenic, and you can have any rail over rail bridges there. I don't think there would be much benefit to having an incline between the two.

 

To be honest, it would be easier if you did care about era and realistic operation to some extent, because that would inform the specifics of the design. You could have a fairly modern high level station along the lines of Birmingham International and run modern trains up there, and a steam era low level station/ industry, or vice versa (though I'd have the industry being steam/ transition era on the pair with the shunting potential since there was more of that then).

[Keith Addenbrooke]

10 hours ago, Zomboid said:

The two ends are purely scenic, and you can have any rail over rail bridges there. I don't think there would be much benefit to having an incline between the two.

 

To be honest, it would be easier if you did care about era and realistic operation to some extent, because that would inform the specifics of the design. You could have a fairly modern high level station along the lines of Birmingham International and run modern trains up there, and a steam era low level station/ industry, or vice versa (though I'd have the industry being steam/ transition era on the pair with the shunting potential since there was more of that then).

Is there a weight limit on what the hand cranks can lift?  It might affect how many levels of layout can be used.  (I suggested a similar system for a much smaller plan Zomboid was looking at recently: a photo of the cranking system would be great - and might be of general interest to others).

 

Also, is there a vertical constraint on the “thickness” of the layout - i.e: if the difference from the lowest point of the substructure to the highest point of the layout exceeds dimension “X” then it will either crush into the ceiling or be too low for people / cars to pass beneath?  I note you can accommodate at least two levels.
 

Personally I’d suggest increasing the size of the central operating well might be wise - although it may seem like less layout space, it could be beneficial in other ways: less of a daunting space to fill with scenery, more room to move around (and change your viewing perspective), easier to reach across the boards, and (weirdly perhaps) a thinner baseboard can sometimes seem longer.

 

(Note - I admit my own layout isn’t following these principles, but they can still be recommended as good planning theory).

 

As for details, I‘‘m with Zomboid in advocating scenic ends to the layout, to give a distinct sense of journey between one side and the other, with trains disappearing from view (or needing to be followed).

 

I also agree it can be helpful to have some idea as what inspires you - look at some pictures of real locations as well as other track plans, see if a theme springs to mind.  At this stage I’d suggest not using track planning software - that comes later (there’s an excellent two piece series in May and June 2020 BRM magazine on this exact subject).  Even if you want to run other trains, a coherent theme can be the key to sustaining interest.

 

Birmingham International is an interesting suggestion (but does feature longer trains and electrics).  If you like more modern architecture Coventry may be more of an interesting example just down the line, because of the Kenilworth / Leamington branch.  At one time, locos would be swapped there as the branch is not electrified.  Leamington Spa is a different type of four-Track station, with the four lines between the platforms.  It could work as a “scenic fiddle yard“ as some trains have to wait in the platform roads while others pass straight through.  It’s an older station design (more typically steam era).

 

My ‘off the wall’ suggestion would be to look at a four track main line that combines the passenger and goods operations.  You could then build it is stages, two lines at a time.  You may hate the idea - but in this process that’s still a relevant outcome.
 

Hope there’s something of use here - I’ve found this Forum really helpful.  Keith.

[Mike Greenwood]

Hi Guys, thanks for the feedback so far, here are the photos I should have posted int he first place!

 

Firstly the hand turned winch which is bolted through the garage wall and out the other side, this then leads up the wall and turns at the pulley to head towards the centre of the room, this then pulls on a rope section which is 2 ropes attached either side of the board that come um the walls and over another pullet each to meet in the centre.

 

 

I have also attached 4 safety chains which when raised the board can be hooked to meaning it has 8 attachment points and no danger of falling, this also helps it hold its square while up in the roof for longer periods.

 

The board itself is 12 by 8, with the central operating well.

 

 

As you can see no space either side but the far end can be accessed by opening the door.

 

To answer some of the questions from above.

 

15 hours ago, Zomboid said:

So what I would do for that is have two pairs of lines at different elevations, as you suggest. Along one side I'd put a higher board for about 8 feet of the length and the whole width of that side, and put a station there with at least 4 platforms. It'll basically be a set of visible storage loops for your passenger trains. If you want carriage sidings and loco storage then there's probably space.

The lower level loops can run underneath, and you can have a couple of storage loops there too (make sure you have enough elevation to get your hands in to retrieve derailments, and if you want to motorise the high level points with under-board motors that'll need space too.

 

On the other side of the board, the high level lines run along the back on an embankment, behind the industry which serves the low level pair.

 

The two ends are purely scenic, and you can have any rail over rail bridges there. I don't think there would be much benefit to having an incline between the two.

 

To be honest, it would be easier if you did care about era and realistic operation to some extent, because that would inform the specifics of the design. You could have a fairly modern high level station along the lines of Birmingham International and run modern trains up there, and a steam era low level station/ industry, or vice versa (though I'd have the industry being steam/ transition era on the pair with the shunting potential since there was more of that then).

 

This seems to be the logical solution to my issues and I think multi level is the only way I can fit it all in. I very much like the idea of a station one side being the focus, then the other side with the industry and the the passenger line being more background, hopefully disguising the generally circular format. I had thought about having the backscene on the garage door end much further in and sending the trains into this to then reappear at the the other end, effectively making it more of a horseshoe shape.

 

In terms of era, its not so much I don't care, I just don't know enough to get it right, I only want to run Steam and Diesel, so I suppose I have to push towards 50's 60's?

 

I'd love to make a more realistic layout in the future but as this is my first project, and also a rented house I just want something to get my trains on and learn the ropes as it were.

 

4 hours ago, Keith Addenbrooke said:

Is there a weight limit on what the hand cranks can lift?  It might affect how many levels of layout can be used.  (I suggested a similar system for a much smaller plan Zomboid was looking at recently: a photo of the cranking system would be great - and might be of general interest to others).

 

Originally the board was far too heavy duty, I could walk over any section of it which is massive overkill and made it very heavy, it has since been on a huge diet and I can lift it from either end myself, the system will cope with around half a ton, to be honest I don't really know what a layout ends up weighing but I assume I will be fine.

 

4 hours ago, Keith Addenbrooke said:

Also, is there a vertical constraint on the “thickness” of the layout - i.e: if the difference from the lowest point of the substructure to the highest point of the layout exceeds dimension “X” then it will either crush into the ceiling or be too low for people / cars to pass beneath?  I note you can accommodate at least two levels.

 

Ok so I forgot to mention this in the write up:

The board has to go up to a certain level so that when the garage door is opened it rolls inwards and comes just under the board, can't avoid this and the Mrs won't allow the garage to stay shut forever.

The whole board has a clearance of around 24cm as it is, but as you can see from the roof there are only beams running along certain points and the clearance for anything not directly under these can easily be another 30cm. I have also made the board narrow enough so the backscenes on the long edges will fall inside the roof beams and therefore can be the larger height, the end backscenes would have to have cutouts for the beams if they were to go above 24cm.

 

4 hours ago, Keith Addenbrooke said:

My ‘off the wall’ suggestion would be to look at a four track main line that combines the passenger and goods operations.  You could then build it is stages, two lines at a time.  You may hate the idea - but in this process that’s still a relevant outcome.

 

I'm all for off the wall suggestions, the current layout is off the roof so it seems apt.

 

So with the above are you suggesting all 4 lines run together round the layout or all 4 meet at the station and it becomes and passenger/goods station?

 

Thanks for the feedback, I really needed someone else to throw ideas at me.

 

Mike

[mdvle]

3 hours ago, Mike Greenwood said:

This seems to be the logical solution to my issues and I think multi level is the only way I can fit it all in. I very much like the idea of a station one side being the focus, then the other side with the industry and the the passenger line being more background, hopefully disguising the generally circular format.

 

Do you prefer more urban, or more rural, or one of each?

 

3 hours ago, Mike Greenwood said:

In terms of era, its not so much I don't care, I just don't know enough to get it right, I only want to run Steam and Diesel, so I suppose I have to push towards 50's 60's?

 

It depends on whether you want to be accurate to a given era, or just run whatever you want.

 

You will typically find on RMweb a bias to trying to accurately recreate the real railway, but most of the hobby (say 80%) don't care about such things and don't participate on forums like RMweb.

 

So create what you want, and not what you think you are expected to do.

 

If you do want to try to be more accurate, then the transition era is the place to go - but that inherently places restrictions on what you can do in terms of what diesels or steam engines are appropriate, and what liveries they can carry.

 

For example, what steam locos do you prefer?  Are you sticking to certain types (GWR, SR, LMS, etc) or is your collection more of a random collection?

 

If you really want something say post-1960s for your diesels - whether it be BR Blue or later, or a Class 68 - then perhaps consider combining a mainline railway with a heritage line, that could allow you a bit more flexibility while still being somewhat accurate.

 

3 hours ago, Mike Greenwood said:

I'd love to make a more realistic layout in the future but as this is my first project, and also a rented house I just want something to get my trains on and learn the ropes as it were.

 

A good attitude to have, and perhaps break things down a bit further.

 

Which is more interesting to you - passenger operations or goods stuff?

 

Depending on your answer, then worry only about that portion of the layout for now and let the rest simply be the plywood loops that they currently are.

 

Experiment doing all the various things - track design, scenery, structures - on that small portion of the layout so you have something that is both reasonably achievable as well as a not huge investment.  Learn from it, decide what you like / dislike, redo things as necessary, and then when you are happy consider what to do with the rest of the layout (which could even be a total restart).

 

 

 

 

 

[Keith Addenbrooke]

Thanks for posting the photos - they give a really helpful insight and explanation.  As mdvle has already explained, a Forum such as this can throw up many ideas - more like a conversation, less like an exam (there’s no one right answer).

 

The baseboards look really well made, so it looks like getting something going so you can try things out might be the priority, rather than aiming for a fully finished solution before you start.

 

If you take Zomboid’s suggestion, which sounds really interesting, one way to approach it would be to have a plan where you can build the first level, then add the second level later - either as intended or changed completely.  It does take some time to build a model railway, so you may want to have some operating along the way.

 

My alternative idea, for a four track line, can either be built as one four-Track loop (bit plain, but you get to see trains pass each other), or with two pairs of double track lines on one side of the layout, coming together at a larger junction station on the other side.  It’d be an easier build (it could be flat), but the space needed for junctions might mean the trains have to be shorter.

 

The horseshoe idea you suggest is a good one - it can work really well visually.

 

It looks like your track is currently Setrack - are you happy to use Flextrack, which will give vastly more scope and it does look much better (I speak from experience as I have both, although - as mdvle notes, we all have our preferences).

 

If I get a chance to do a doodle later I’ll post it up, but may be a bit busy today, Keith.

[Mike Greenwood]

Hi guys, so I put together a rough idea to bounce around, please ignore the actual track design itself, its just there to give an idea.

 

 

The blue loop would be a passenger line and would be raised but flat throughout, the yellow line would be for goods.

 

The board would be in 4 main areas:

 

East End would be a raised town which would cover all the track at than end.

South Side would contain the station and some sidings and support for the station itself.

North side would contain industry, undecided on what this would be, both the Station and Industry would be connected tot he town on East Side.

West End would be much more rural so a transition on both North and South side from Urban to Rural would need to be achieved, I would possibly like to incorporate some kind of Viaduct in the West End section. (Spectators would only really be stood at the West End to view)

 

The general idea here would be to create 3 different "scenes" to look at which won't appear connected on the layout due to tunnels etc.

 

I could then work on one area at a time leaving the rest as just plain track, and therefore maybe alter it as the layout progressed.

 

Would it even be viable to add a double sided back scene between the West End and the remainder of the layout?

 

Just some thoughts to get going.

 

Some questions raised:

 

12 hours ago, mdvle said:

Do you prefer more urban, or more rural, or one of each?

 

I would say both, but I think purely from what I have mocked up here I would say Urban is probably more appealing.

 

12 hours ago, mdvle said:

Which is more interesting to you - passenger operations or goods stuff?

 

Bit of both but again I think urban and goods feels more appealing.

 

6 hours ago, Keith Addenbrooke said:

It looks like your track is currently Setrack - are you happy to use Flextrack, which will give vastly more scope and it does look much better (I speak from experience as I have both, although - as mdvle notes, we all have our preferences).

 

 

I only have a load of setrack at the moment gathered from a few sets I have bought and been given but I would have to use Flextrack for a lot of the things I want to fit in.

 

Enjoying the feedback, I'd left this board empty and unloved for too long so glad to have got back to it.

 

Thanks

Mike

[Zomboid]

Broadly speaking that's what I was suggesting. I would put the yellow lines under the blue station to put a couple of loops in so you can have a variety of trains on those lines, and make it more visible on at least some of the east and west ends. Don't have your trains spending longer than necessary hidden in tunnels where you can't see them.

 

There's a few specific things in the track layout that I would change too, but let's get the outline sorted out before we go into the details too much. Things like set track or streamline are important decisions to make first. (if you want to then there's no reason why the lower loops couldn't use set track and the upper ones streamline, for example if you've already got a bucket of set track that you don't want to get rid of).

Edited June 8, 2020 by Zomboid

[Keith Addenbrooke]

Hi Mike, I've had a bit of a gap at lunchtime, so jotted down some thoughts.  There are others much better qualified and experienced than I am to help develop and refine your ideas and come up with something really awesome - I can only really offer some pointers which may help, and I do know what it can feel like to get stuck trying to decide on a plan to build!

 

There's some good stuff in the two level suggestion you've put together - the scenes make a lot of sense, which could help sustain interest, and you've not overstuffed the West End with track.   It also proves the point Zomboid made that keeping the levels separate fits the space.

 

One thing to note: from a UK railway operating perspective, where trains usually run forwards on the left line of a double track, the two pairs of goods sidings would have to point the other way in order to be shunted by trains going past.  In practice, they don't tend to be shunted directly off the main running lines, for safety reasons as well as operational ones, which is why there's a lot of information about headshunts around if you want to explore that area.

 

You've obviously been looking at your options for a while, so please forgive me if what I've noted down is stuff you thought about ages ago.

 

I went back to first principles to get my head round your space (your photos really helped).  One idea that used to be taught in American Model Railroad Track Planning was "planning by squares" in which your space is redefined according to the space needed for a double track right hand curve.  There's been a real step change in UK model railways over the past twenty years or so, so although Hornby (etc) used to make trains that would comfortably go round 15" curves (approx. Radius 1), the better quality rolling stock we can now buy is much happier on wider curves (in Setrack language, Radius 3 and 4 - standard Setrack Points still use Radius 2).  If I sketch a double track curve using Radii 3 and 4 I basically need a 2' square.  This makes your space 6 sq. by 4 sq.  As you say at the start, not that big (and not as big as it may look as empty boards).

 

I also looked at train length.  It's worth measuring your longest locos and coaches (especially as more modern coaches get longer).  Assuming a coach is about 10" long, then your three coach plus loco train is 40", and a four coach plus loco train is 50".

 

For a passing loop, the other critical dimension is to leave some space at the points, so that trains don't sideswipe each other.  The curve of the track also affects this.

 

As you already have boards and some rolling stock, one simple eye test you could do would be to compare a train running along in a straight line with one on a gentle curve - the kind of curve you can get with Flextrack.  The gentle curve can look a lot more realistic, and for that reason is often favoured.

 

As you already have boards and coaches, you could mark out a curve of any radius you want using string and place a train on it to see what a difference it makes, and what you're happy with.

 

It may well be that I've not shown anything new in all this - they're just some of the tricks I've used to get me past a sticking point so i can enjoy planning instead of finding it frustrating!

 

I hope it helps - will watch for progress with interest, Keith.

 

Edited October 6, 2022 by Keith Addenbrooke
Edit for text only as photos no longer available

[ITG]

21 minutes ago, Keith Addenbrooke said:

 

For a passing loop, the other critical dimension is to leave some space at the points, so that trains don't sideswipe each other.

Also, a mistake I made with loops within stations is not allowing enough end space beyond any uncoupler ramps of any kind. That is, the first (or last depending on you look at it) coach/wagon coupling position needs to be such that the vehicle end is not so close to a curve (or part of point curve) on adjacent track. Otherwise, overhang of vehicle on that adjacent track can foul the parked vehicle.

[Keith Addenbrooke]

Looking again at the doodle I described earlier (photo no longer available) my lunch break curves did look rather embarrassingly rough after I'd posted them in public, sorry, so I did a bit of tidying up (second iteration no longer available).

 

If I did my calculations right, the minimum radius on the outside branch line was still at least 30", and for the inner main line 24" - I had to use Flextrack to achieve this, not because I'm particularly pushing it but to compare with Setrack layouts.  As Zomboid noted, there's a case for mixing them if you already have Setrack and are happy with it (my own layout plan uses Setrack end curves and Streamline points).

 

Unfortunately I'd deleted my original file so this was a re-creation: again, it was only a concept sketch that would need a lot of refining, tidying up and checking before it could be used for anything - although I've knocked this out on a computer for convenience, it is no more than a rough pencil sketch in terms of accuracy at this stage - the 21st Century "back of an envelope." 

 

I put the main station flatter across the South side of the layout this time, to give a bit more scenic space on the East end where your high level town is suggested, but developed the connection between the single line goods branch and the main lines a bit more.

 

In concept I treated an outer goods line more like two branch lines that head off in either direction from the main station - my assumption is that using DCC you can run three trains simultaneously (one on each line), rather than trying to switch trains between lines, which this plan doesn't really allow for.

 

Because there is more space for goods sidings on the outside of the running lines, I put them there.  The immediate disadvantage is that they're harder to reach.  Making the operating well larger would help, and is something I'd look at anyway, but it may be that this all means this isn't the type of idea you're looking for.

 

Keith.

 

Edited October 6, 2022 by Keith Addenbrooke
Edited for text only as photos no longer available

[DCB]

So you want a branch, Goods lines, Passenger lines, spare platforms to hold extra trains?  in 12 X 8.   No way Hose.

 

Mind you I reckon my fantasy layout with a 3rd radius with 2ft radius Peco points reversing loop would fit quite nicely.

Add a terminus and MPD on a high level a la Crewlisle,  and goods lines and marshalling sidings inside the main lines.  So a 4 platform station with separate Goods lines, plus a bay for the branch train on one side , the terminus at high level with an impressive junction with the goods lines in front of it.   Four trains running, plus shunting at the through station and terminus at the same time.  I doodled it and I reckon it would fit.   Red Main, Green Goods. The Goods would be permissive block with trains following nose to tail if required. The sidings have their own headshunt.  Locos can turn on the mainline reversing loop.

A couple of trailing crossovers or four would make the main through station more fun as would some dummy trackwork in the station throat instead of burying so much of it.   A separate branch instead of impinging on the main line reversing loop would be good but would eat space better used for other stuff.  Scenic breaks are assumed to be bridges and the Goods continues in view to keep visual continuity.

 Anyway I had fun drawing it.  Might be worth trying it in Anyrail to check it all works.