Early stages

[simmo009]

Greetings all. I am going to build a layout (no, really), but as we are all aware, it is tricky squeezing everything you want into the available space.

So, I have a general 10' x 8' area to work with, and the boards are mainly 800mm deep, 12mm ply. One of them will be 600mm deep, but is only 1400mm long. There will be additional space for generous fiddle yards.

Working in 00 gauge, late BR steam, possibly early diesels / DMU. DCC control will be used.

 

I would like a bit of everything really,  twin track mainline (Pacifics + 6 × Mk1),  branch operation, goods workings, both through and stopping.

 

Having tried many ways to accommodate this in the given space, it all gets very cramped and train set like. So I have been playing with gradients on Scarm, which to be honest has made things even worse. Also, I am aware of the traction issues of steam locomotives with gradients.

 

Therefore, my thinking is now moving towards a multi-level arrangement, where each level is independent, one for Expresses, one as a branch and one for goods, operated as follows. 

Base level - goods traffic, fiddle yard to scenic to fiddle yard. This gives lots of footprint for traffic generating industry etc. Long through trains (9f's with 20 - 30 wagons) plus assorted 4-6-0's with industry specific trains, or general goods for a shunting yard.

Mid level - branch line, a few small through stations with passing loops and limited goods facilities,  tank engines with 2 bogie carriages max, or 6/7 wagons. Again, FY - scenic - FY.

Top level - twin track mainline, FY to terminus, sort of Minories.

 

It seems to me that this will give excellent scope for scenery, and the opportunity for some more natural looking scenic breaks, whilst avoiding the known issues with gradients, and also breaking the whole into distinct phases so that progress can be seen to be made.

 

I will put up some diagrams of the baseboards shortly to give a better idea of what I have to play with.

 

It seems to me that this concept would deliver 3 independent models on a common footprint,  but tied together scenically and thematically. Any input on the general concept would be welcome. 

[mdvle]

51 minutes ago, simmo009 said:

It seems to me that this concept would deliver 3 independent models on a common footprint,  but tied together scenically and thematically. Any input on the general concept would be welcome. 

 

Yes, it delivers that - at 3 times the cost in time to build, scenic, and in £'s spent on baseboard, track, and supplies.

 

If you have the budget, then by all means go for it if it is what you want.

 

Otherwise perhaps some time reflecting on what you really want might be time well spent, as well as what can realistically fit in your space - not sure of the lengths in OO but I suspect a 9F with 20 to 30 wagons it going to be a problem.

 

For instance, you mention a possible variation on minories, which in most cases implies a very urban area - so there is certainly no reason you couldn't have your minories station on a viaduct with a lower ground level good yard in front of it.  This gets you 2 out of your 3 wants in a reasonable way, would that perhaps be good enough?

[Zomboid]

I think you want an awful lot in what's actually not an especially huge space. I think something's going to have to give from that list if you don't want it to be train-setty.

 

What's your interest? Express trains to a terminus and big freight facilities is pointing mostly towards inner city - are we talking London/ Manchester/ Leeds etc as places with lines going here there and everywhere? Or is bucolic Missmarpleshire more what you want in the end?

 

Saying all that, it would be helpful for everyone if you could provide a plan of the baseboard area and any other fixed points.

[DCB]

Sounds like an awful lot for a 10 X 8.   I don't for one minute think three unconnected levels will be satisfactory . 

I know Americans make it work but generally they have more space and their levels tend to be connected together.

One line for expresses, one for goods plus a branch sounds like one of these model railway exhibitions at Tourist destinations, which are ok and which I dreamed of owning aged 7 but not great for operating.

Focusing on the real steam / diesel era railways  1958/62 on the WR or 1958/67/8 elsewhere there were an awful lot of places with one pair of tracks where slow goods, fast goods, slow passenger and express passenger all ran, generally to a timetable and separated by block signalling.  Both my nearest stations had just two main through platforms and local passengers reversed there and went back, Cheltenham turned back Southampton trains and later London trains, 90 plus mile runs, while Kemble had Swindon locals turn back. Both had separate goods facilities just up the line.

Some locations also had branch passenger trains using the same two tracks and a couple had just two tracks and two different region's trains Thinking Cowley Bridge Exeter and Mutley at Plymouth, WR and SR with Launceston and Exe Valley branch trains respectively.  Mutley also had GW light engine moves to and from Laira and lots of double heading..  

Pure express lines were effectively non existent, the RHDR springs to mind as the exception.  David Jenkinson's Garsdale Road was around your size I believe and that was my ideal for many years until I realised I like return loops and shunting a station.

The steam railway didn't have that many express trains, but had an awful lot of freight Maybe less is more, or More is less, I never did work out which was which.

Edited June 23, 2020 by DavidCBroad

[Zomboid]

To give your an idea of what you're looking at if you want to avoid anything train-setty, have a read of this thread:

 

It's for a room of approximately 9' x 8', so pretty close to your space. It's definitely not what I'd a consider "train-setty" design.

 

An alternative approach would be the way Crewlisle has been built. https://www.flickr.com/photos/tags/crewlisle/. Lots of action, lots of track, but also lots of gradients and it's using mostly diesel and electric traction which makes the hills more viable (it's also quite old as layouts go and old steam models were apparently better climbers than modern ones are). Don't know the exact dimensions of that one. It's quite a retro style design, but it does pack a lot of railway into a not terribly huge space.

Edited June 23, 2020 by Zomboid

[Keith Addenbrooke]

Hi there, looks to me like a key factor could be the arrangement of the space you have, especially where you refer to "additional space for generous fiddle yards."

 

If you can put up a simple diagram of your space with measurements (and key details like doorways), you may well find it acts a bit like a magnet to the layout designing community.

 

I can think of various schemes that might be of interest, depending on how the scenic / non-scenic space splits.

 

I'm more familiar with some American model railroad concepts than British, but there are some tricks that transfer well to a UK setting.

 

For example, If you have large fiddle yards that are hidden from view (but can be safely operated!), perhaps in another room or behind a wall divide, you suddenly have huge flexibility when it comes to how to get the best out of your scenic space.

[Aire Head]

Thank you @Zomboid for feeling I'm worthy of mention 

 

I have found personally through the design process on Eastburn that less really is more and that some sacrifices can really make a big improvement.

 

First of all think about what you want to do and see the most. For me it was running goods trains and a bit of shunting.

 

Because of this I sacrificed the idea of having the station depicted on the model and it is assumed to be the other side of on the scenic breaks. I did this because in reality a station is just going to be two platforms that my passenger trains stop at and therefore isn't critical to the design and operation.

 

I worked to a principle of a prototype. I already had a vague location in mind so I looked at the other stations on the route and then used various parts of them to provide inspiration.

 

As to branch line operations I'd say it was unessecary to have a branch and a mainline.

 

My prototype has everything from the Thames Clyde Express with a Royal Scot and 10 coaches to the Local Bradford-Skipton stopper which could be as small as an Ivatt 2MT tank and a couple of non-corridor coaches.

 

On the goods side I have anything from an 8F hauling a long string of minerals, fast fitted express goods thundering through behind a Jubilee or Black 5 and the humble pickup goods of 10/15 wagons being dragged by a 4F or 3F.

 

 

 

 

[simmo009]

Thanks for the responses so far. Aire Head, i will read your thread with interest this evening.

 

Here you go guys, main baseboard plan and an upper level. Corner fillets can be added if required. You will see that the upper level terminus board will overhang the rear of the low level board by 300mm, but the full width won't fit on the paper. I was thinking of a 200mm separation between board tops.

 

I am looking at approx. 750mm outer radius curve on the upper level, with 50mm track centres, but will transition the curves and widen the spacing in the middle on the inner track to prevent stock overlap. I would like to keep the curves on the lower level above 500mm radius.

 

There is a doorway at the right hand end of the fiddle yard, hence the odd length of the board.

 

Maybe a branch could work off the low level fiddle yard and utilize a 'gentle' gradient (possibly 3 degrees) as these will be short trains.

 

With regards to a theme, I am thinking towards East Coast / ex LNER based on the stock that I have.

High Level Baseboards.pdf Low Level Baseboards.pdf

[Zomboid]

How much of this has been built so far? And how much is negotiable?

 

200mm is a scale 50ft separation, which is a lot when you're looking at verticals - high viaduct territory (have I done that maths right?). You probably need something like that to get access to the low level storage, but it'll look quite severe in the scenic area.

[Keith Addenbrooke]

1 hour ago, simmo009 said:

Thanks for the responses so far. Aire Head, i will read your thread with interest this evening.

 

Here you go guys, main baseboard plan and an upper level. Corner fillets can be added if required. You will see that the upper level terminus board will overhang the rear of the low level board by 300mm, but the full width won't fit on the paper. I was thinking of a 200mm separation between board tops.

 

I am looking at approx. 750mm outer radius curve on the upper level, with 50mm track centres, but will transition the curves and widen the spacing in the middle on the inner track to prevent stock overlap. I would like to keep the curves on the lower level above 500mm radius.

 

There is a doorway at the right hand end of the fiddle yard, hence the odd length of the board.

 

Maybe a branch could work off the low level fiddle yard and utilize a 'gentle' gradient (possibly 3 degrees) as these will be short trains.

 

With regards to a theme, I am thinking towards East Coast / ex LNER based on the stock that I have.

High Level Baseboards.pdf 327.03 kB · 6 downloads Low Level Baseboards.pdf 275.79 kB · 2 downloads

 

1 hour ago, Zomboid said:

How much of this has been built so far? And how much is negotiable?

 

200mm is a scale 50ft separation, which is a lot when you're looking at verticals - high viaduct territory (have I done that maths right?). You probably need something like that to get access to the low level storage, but it'll look quite severe in the scenic area.

Thanks for this - apologies for another question, but could I ask how you build / will build / have built your baseboards?
 

Simple reason for asking: the vertical clearance between board tops is one key dimension (I think 200mm is 50’ btw)  as that is the distance a train has to climb or descend on a multi-level layout.  Is this a fixed dimension?
 

But a second key dimension is from the lower baseboard to the bottom of the upper baseboard substructure (ie: I like to use 12mm plywood as you do for main baseboards, but mine are supported by 2” x 1” softwood (50mm x 25mm nominal), which means the modelling headroom on a lower baseboard would be reduced by 62mm and would be 138mm).  This affects access and visibility for the lower level of the layout, which can be a design constraint.

 

Sorry for yet more questions: the key thing the diagram shows is that the planned space for fiddle yards (on both levels) is single ended,so there could be a lot of “fiddling” depending on the design you go for (this may not be a problem - just something to be aware of).

[simmo009]

Nothing assembled yet, but I have boards in these sizes already. Typical frame would be ex 2" x 1" pse hardwood, so leaving reasonable access to the lower fy. I was thinking to fiddle on the forward lines then drive them to the rear lines for despatch. A traverser may be the way to go at low level, it would save a lot of points as well as obviate the access issue.

[Harlequin]

Hi,

Your boards are preventing you from reaching the ideal plan.

Draw the plan first, making best use the room, then design boards to carry it.

If that means you have to chop up or throw away the boards you've got it will be a good investment in the long run.

 

Can we see a rough plan of the room and where the door is, please?

 

[Zomboid]

So if I were you... I'd have the levels a bit closer, so it's not such a huge difference. Having a load of freight at a different level to the passenger line is entirely reasonable (it's been discussed quite a lot in other threads, but there's the likes of Birmingham Moor St, or Bishopgate on the approach to Liverpool St). I wouldn't bother trying to get a branch line in though, the only way the scene will be credible is if it's inner city grot which wouldn't really fit with that, but you can quite happily run shortish trains and tank engines to/from the high level terminus. The lower level could then be as shunt-tastic as you like - I know just about nothing about steam era inner city freight yards, but the lower level gives you space for quite a lot of it, on the face of things. The shape of the boards etc will mean that any continuous run is going to be a bit of a tailchaser - I would just have a U shape and buy a circle of track to put on the floor/ dining table to run locos in, but that's up to you. If you want a continuous run then Harlequin is right, a different arrangement of boards will give a much better outcome.

 

I suppose in fairly solid LNER territory you could be looking at cities like London, Leeds, Hull, Newcastle, Edinburgh, Glasgow... probably many more, but those come to mind.

Edited June 23, 2020 by Zomboid

[DCB]

You have plenty of space by the looks of it t.
I did a screenshot of your plans to make them easier to manage.  Seems like an awful lot of stock handling fiddling for a very short run. Absolute opposite of what I would aim for, that is all trains available to run either left to right or right to left at a whim. I think thats the principle of the Pendon Vale of the white horse layout as well, at least that's where I got the idea from.

East coast main line is more a 1970s concept. Pre diesels there was a very pronounced split between local passenger, shunting and goods locos between London Area, GN dominated, and York Newcaste NE territory and the Scottish bit

Edited June 23, 2020 by DavidCBroad

[Keith Addenbrooke]

@DavidCBroad is ahead of me. If I’ve got it right the lower level to a very rough scale is like this: essentially square [A][D] is the (almost) 10’ x 8’ in the opening post [AB is about 9’10”, AD about 8’], with a fiddle yard extension and an extra 0.8m square.  The operating well and duck under look fine, and there’s not too far to reach over any of the boards.

(Sorry, photo no longer available)

 

It sounds like part of a multipurpose room (often a garage?), so we’re bound to ask if more space can be pinched.  My first thought was to wonder if the top of the fiddle yard board could be widened into a loop:

 

(Sorry, photo no longer available)

That could potentially reduce the amount of “fiddling” needed.  If I’m reading the notes right, there’s a door North of the 0.8m square.  It may be that the rest of the room is needed for other purposes.  If not, can the door be rehung the other way?

 

Personally I look at this and see 10’ x 8’ with the bonus of an extension for a generous fiddle yard, so I would see what looks good in  the basic square first.  Given that the fiddle yard means I wouldn’t have to worry about keeping lots of stock on the layout, there’s the flexibility to look at ‘less busy’ plans for the continuous run, which could give the trains and the scenery room to breathe.  For the 0.8m extension, I’d almost put that to one side to start with, then see what naturally stretches into that space.

 

And I’ve not even thought about what I would do with an upper level yet...
 

Just a few thoughts, Keith.

 

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

[Keith Addenbrooke]

3 hours ago, simmo009 said:

Nothing assembled yet, but I have boards in these sizes already. Typical frame would be ex 2" x 1" pse hardwood, so leaving reasonable access to the lower fy. I was thinking to fiddle on the forward lines then drive them to the rear lines for despatch. A traverser may be the way to go at low level, it would save a lot of points as well as obviate the access issue.

The challenge with a traverser would be how to operate it and be inside the central operating well at the same time - unless you have two operators you could be ducking in and out quite regularly.  If you set it up so your main operating position is on the outside by the fiddle yards, then the far side of the continuous run is a long way away and you’ll be looking across the big void and it would be difficult to operate the upper level terminus.

[Keith Addenbrooke]

I misread a couple of the dimensions when looking at the upper level (no hiding with paper!).  It think this is now right:

 

(Sorry, photo no longer available)
 

I’ve not shown a fiddle yard extension to make a return loop, as it’d be a long way to reach across at a higher level (too far at a guess) - it’d be a long way across at the lower level too, but an emergency access hatch could be provided inside a loop.

To be honest, I think it will be very difficult to join the two levels together without seriously compromising either (or both) track plans to make a junction and the gradients fit with these boards.  I’d probably aim for two separate layouts.  
 

However, here’s an off the wall suggestion to finish with:

 

You could, with these boards, build a layout in sections, starting with part of the upper level.  Why the upper level?  With narrower boards on the upper level there’s a risk of dropping or spilling something onto the lower level at some point during construction if you work from the bottom up, particularly if leaning over a wider, lower board all the time (especially if you need to do any wiring under the upper baseboard).

 

But you could start by building and fixing the upper level fiddle yard.

Then build the upper level terminus, but fix it temporarily in the 2.44m space next to it.

You can then run trains (albeit not far), you can test run operating a terminus to fiddle yard scheme, test your wiring, practice scenic building (with a terminus and associated urban scenery) and have something to show off.

The “Theory of General Minories” thread explores what all this involves in great detail.

 

When you’re ready to expand, move the terminus round to it’s permanent position and add the bridging sections and the extension (which could be a scenic city module, for example).  Do think how you’ll reach the far end of the terminus if you need to - it’s too far to reach from inside the operating well.  You may not need to - with auto-uncouplers you may only need to reach the station throat for most operating moves.
 

Then build the continuous run layout below.  It’s just a thought.

 

Looks like you’ve got a great space - the main compromise could be on train length - I reckon a 6 coach train needs about 1.52m (+ loco) but I’ll leave it to those who know more about NE railways to advise on options there.  Eastburn is a great place to start.

 

You’ll have fun, Keith.

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

[simmo009]

Great stuff guys, keep it coming.

 

Losing the small board to give upper and lower level u-shapes is a definite possibility. My workbench has a built in second radius loop so running in does not have to happen on the layout.

 

There is 1.1 metres beyond the end of the fiddle yard, but the door opens into it. Hanging the door the other way would involve relaying the floor, so is a no-no. However, looping off at the end of the fiddle yard is definitely a viable proposition.

 

There are walls along the north and west sides (north being the side with the fiddle yards). The south side is open, but it is not possible to take any more footprint. To be honest,  I am at the limit with the overhang of the station area. The curve in can be widened to accommodate any necessary throat pointwork, and the radius can also increase.

[Harlequin]

Like this?

[Keith Addenbrooke]

Hi there, this is a sketch drawn on Anyrail to show how a reversing loop "fiddle yard" might fit as a lower "hands free" fiddle yard alternative.  It's just a sketch to show what may be possible.   Direction of travel would be clockwise. Points are a Peco Streamline Short point and a Streamline curved point.  It would need to be wired as a reversing loop to avoid short circuits, but with DCC I think "auto-reversers" are available to help with this.  Depending on your electronics, systems and programs are available that could automatically bring forward each train as the one ahead departed, although I don't know how they might work in DCC (others will know more here).

 

Although there are only two loops shown, they would both be staging sidings or storage loops and I'd expect to be able to hold two trains in each - if my workings are correct, then the shorter (inner) loop still has 4.1m usuable storage between the points, which should be enough for two 6-coach trains with engines (do check all the maths against your rolling stock).  I'm also assuming there is a second, higher level fiddle yard for the upper level, so you only have to find room for some of your trains on this lower layout.  You could have two long trains in the outer loop and potentially set it up for three (or four?) shorter ones in the inner loop.

 

(Sorry, photos no longer available)
 

I couldn't get the "mm" dimensions quite right, but the basic shape is 2.26m long and 1.25mm wide.  I've reverted to a horizontal orientation so the layout is on the left.  Additional one-ended sidings could be added, but would be shorter, and more points would shorten the loops.  It may be possible to add another loop: if you're happy with 2nd radius curves "off-stage" then British outline R-T-R stock is expected to go round it.  I've kept to Setrack end curves for two reasons: ease of alignment, and guaranteed spacing between the tracks so trains won't sideswipe each other.  The tightest point is at the yard throat, but I think there's enough room and some juggling could be done.

 

This is all just an idea - you may decide it doesn't fit your thinking, or it may look too big in the space, or you may want more long storage lines to "fiddle" conventionally (easier with straight track).  Just something to consider.

________________________________

 

On a different point, is it possible to add a second, upper level board joining the two sides of that layout (above the 600mm wide board shown on the lower level)?  I ask as it would make it easier to join the two levels if both upper and lower levels could have a continuous run option?

 

Keith.

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

[Harlequin]

If I've understood the space correctly,then how about something like this:

 

This is very much a "Route 1" solution:

• Keep it simple - just two levels and the upper level very specifically tries to cover as few tracks as possible on the lower.
• Double track circuit on the lower level with station and fiddle yard loops.
• Mix goods and passenger on your main line, just like the real thing.
• Branch services can terminate in the main line station or the FY.
• Goods shunting at both branch and main line stations.
• All connected together and workable as a whole system.
• Branch gradient takes the longest possible route so 1 in 50 is easily achievable.

 

[Zomboid]

The passenger terminus is probably what would benefit most from the balloon loops, which would put that on top of the lower level where proper access would be more beneficial. Probably not an insurmountable issue, and you could always stack two of them.

 

With a small height difference the gradient might be reasonable for sharing the loops between the higher and lower levels.

 

Would there be an issue with the terminal station overhang if it were lower? Or indeed if the rest of the layout were a bit higher?

[Keith Addenbrooke]

On 24/06/2020 at 07:32, Keith Addenbrooke said:

On a different point, is it possible to add a second, upper level board joining the two sides of that layout (above the 600mm wide board shown on the lower level)?  I ask as it would make it easier to join the two levels if both upper and lower levels could have a continuous run option?

It looks like @Harlequin and I have both taken the idea of a gentle gradient around the outside edges and applied it in different ways.  The scheme I’m ending up with still sticks to the original footprint, but the continuous run is much tighter, so room to stretch would have some noticeable benefits if you can.  My final scheme however looks like this:

The principal run is from the City Terminus, then round and down the gentle gradient to the lower level continuous run.  Do as many laps as you want, then take the second junction off to the Lower Loop Fiddle yard where the train will either turn (or wait and turn) off-stage, before heading back to the lower loop junction, round the continuous run for a few laps again, then up the gentle gradient back to the City Terminus as a new arrival.

 

This gives an “out and back” scheme where the City Terminus is the centre of operations.  As there is only limited storage in the lower loop fiddle yard, there is an upper level line round to a set of storage lines in the upper Fiddle yard.  This could be a second terminus station if you didn’t need the storage (perhaps a branch line?).

 

As I suggested yesterday, you could still start with just the upper fiddle yard (if it is a fiddle yard) and the City Terminus and work from there, and the return loop storage could be the final piece added. The main problem with this scheme is that you can’t reach both ends of the City Terminus platforms at the same time, because of the board across the middle of the space.

 

It would be fair to say that this scheme owes more to my interest in American outline Model Railroad planning ideas. Keith.

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

[Aire Head]

1 hour ago, Keith Addenbrooke said:

It looks like @Harlequin and I have both taken the idea of a gentle gradient around the outside edges and applied it in different ways.  The scheme I’m ending up with still sticks to the original footprint, but the continuous run is much tighter, so room to stretch would have some noticeable benefits if you can.  My final scheme however looks like this:

 

The principal run is from the City Terminus, then round and down the gentle gradient to the lower level continuous run.  Do as many laps as you want, then take the second junction off to the Lower Loop Fiddle yard where the train will either turn (or wait and turn) off-stage, before heading back to the lower loop junction, round the continuous run for a few laps again, then up the gentle gradient back to the City Terminus as a new arrival.

 

This gives an “out and back” scheme where the City Terminus is the centre of operations.  As there is only limited storage in the lower loop fiddle yard, there is an upper level line round to a set of storage lines in the upper Fiddle yard.  This could be a second terminus station if you didn’t need the storage (perhaps a branch line?).

 

As I suggested yesterday, you could still start with just the upper fiddle yard (if it is a fiddle yard) and the City Terminus and work from there, and the return loop storage could be the final piece added. The main problem with this scheme is that you can’t reach both ends of the City Terminus platforms at the same time, because of the board across the middle of the space.

 

It would be fair to say that this scheme owes more to my interest in American outline Model Railroad planning ideas. Keith.

 

You would be hard pressed to fit 1 station into the boards on the lower runs let alone 2 given the size of trains the OP wants to run.

 

He has space exactly 1 foot more than I have for my plan and I've only been able to fit the goods yard and had to leave the station offscene.

[TonyMay]

Have you considered N gauge?