(Un)familar newbie story

[Glob-Ally]

Hi all, long time reader first time poster.

In some ways my story is a familiar newbie one. Had a trainset as a kid, grandfather built me a baseboard, but parents weren't interested and my practical skills were essentially zero so it never got beyond doing a few boring loops and eventually I gave up. The difference between my dream of something vast circling the room at high speed and the reality of something stuttering round a small loop was just too great. 

Fast forward 25 years, I now have a little toddler of my own who is doing the stereotypical little boy thing of loving any toy involving a vehicle (cars, planes, trains...) and the idea of modelling started to come back to mind. When my wife proved surprisingly encouraging after I floated the idea with her, I decided it was time to dive in. But in many ways its a strange time. For the next 3-4 years we are going to be living in a high rise apartment in Asia (a long way from any model shops!), after which we'll move back to the UK and (hopefully) buy our forever home, necessitating something being completely dismantled.

Trying to make virtue out of necessity, the plan therefore is to use these next few years to build a small-ish layout almost as a proof-of-concept. See if I enjoy it, see if the boy enjoys it, build up my skills and if all goes well then when we get the permanent home I can try to lay claim to a garage or a loft for the bigger layout I used to dream of. 

The things it definitely needs to have are: 
(1) OO gauge. Considered N for a long time given space will be limited but going OO means new (for me) things like soldering should be a bit less fiddly, plus the boy should have the dexterity to be able to start handling things in a year or two, whereas with N I doubt he'd be able to do that at all in the lifetime of this layout.
(2) needs to have a double track roundy round so the boy can race trains as he gets a bit bigger; 
(3) needs to have operational interest for me -  a sense of trains going places for a reason matters a lot to me, even if some disbelief has to be suspended to achieve it;
(4) needs to enable me to try out different aspects of modelling - kit building, town scenery, countryside scenery, wiring, flexi-track, point motors etc - but do it over time so that I'm building up piece by piece.
It would also ideally include a shunting puzzle element. My wife has no interest in trains, but enjoys puzzles and board games so I'm hoping I can suck her in that way.

It does not need to include a fiddle yard - I'm starting from scratch so there's not going to be masses of stock. Nor does it need to be hugely prototypical, my benchmark is that if someone who doesn't know about railways but travels by train in the UK saw it, they'd think it looked like the way a real railway would run (so left-hand running, trying to hide sharp curves where possible etc).

I'll probably primarily run stock from the late 80s/early 90s because its what I associate with, but there will doubtless be exceptions (indeed I'm sure its only a matter of time before Thomas & Friends have to start putting in some appearances to keep the peace). But I'm trying to plan around the idea of a max train length of a class 47 with 3x MkII coaches.

After intensive negotiations (the wife became less keen when she discovered how much space model railways can take up!) the plan is to build this layout in our spare room in two phases. Based on an idea from these forums, phase one will be using two IKEA Linnmon tables topped with cork to build a portable layout (total dimensions 200cm x 120cm) that can be dismantled and stored in another room when we have guests. Part two will use IKEA shelves to build a (fixed) 280cm x 30cm extension to a terminus station above my desk. By falling back on IKEA I'm conscious I'm already missing the first opportunity to build up some skills - woodworking - but there's a premium on getting some trains running relatively quickly, and I'm loathe to pay for another set of tools for a one-off build when I have others sat back in the UK. To be honest IKEA is so cheap in this part of the world that for a one-off build I reckon its cheaper this way. 

So that's the brief. In the next post, where I've got to so far on Phase One. 
 

[Glob-Ally]

In phase one I'm going to stick to set track and (given the thickness of the tables) it'll be largely hand of god point operation (although I may add some surface mounted motors in more difficult to reach spots). Skills I want to work on including soldering and wiring up a bus, ballasting and some town and countryside scenery. But I accept its going to look fairly train-setty. Then in phase 2 I intend to venture in to flexi-track, gradients, and point motors mounted under the board (/shelf).

 
I've had a crack at plotting out what this first phase might look like. I've come up with two similar versions (see attachments). Both are built around a double-track roundy-round (2nd and 3rd radius) with a track branching off round the back behind the backscene that will in the short-term be a place for changing over stock but once phase two is in place will become the start of the line up to the terminus which will be to the left. A chunk of both curves is marked as hidden track. The idea is that on the right hand side this will be a removable hillside countryside scene (to practise working with scatters, trees etc) with the track tunnelling underneath. And on the left hand side the idea will be to have a removable town scene, with a station building above the tracks creating the fiction that the platforms continue in to the tunnel and trains are longer than they appear. By making both removable there's a bit more width for if (when) the boy wants to start putting toys on to wagons and sending them round the layout - something I had never considered until reading other similar threads on here, so thanks! 

 

When in use, the Phase 1 tables will sit up against a wall. Main operating access will be from one of the long sides (the bottom in the attached pictures) with full access also possible from the two short sides left and right. Based on my reach (which I measured as 85cm at the height the layout will be) this will leave a 35x30cm area in the middle at the back not reachable without unplugging and moving the tables. I therefore want to avoid derailing and stalling in this area where at all possible, so I'm aiming to avoid pointwork in these areas, and ideally use straight track. I'd also like to minimise the number of tracks crossing the join between the two tables (black line in the pictures)

 

To support operational interest my idea is to go a bit American and add some rail-served lineside industries (these are the random sidings you see other than the parallel pair with the Y-point which will be a shed/fuelling point). My thought is a mixed freight train can come on-scene, swap wagons at several industries, and then depart again. The phase 2 terminus will then one day include an Inglenook-esque shunting puzzle that can be the start and end point for those trains. Passenger services will be a bit more straightforward, entering, doing several loops and then departing.

The key difference between the two is obviously that one includes a reversing loop and one doesn't. This is the primary area where I would like advice. I really like the theory. Train comes in from the branch, does several laps on the outer circuit, when ready it crosses over to the inner track and then immediately goes round the reversing loop, does several laps of the inner loop, and then when ready crosses the connection and goes back off down the branch. Juggling two trains on the layout at once should be an interesting challenge!

But: the loop is second radius - it has to be to fit. Is that R2 S-bend going to become a complete derailing nightmare (with modern era models manufactured in the last 10 years) that will be more hassle than its worth? I know it'll look odd (I may try to semi hide it with an over-bridge or something) but more than that is it just not going to work?

The second option cuts out that problem by being a more standard double track loop. The challenge here comes in how to get trains to reverse from the clockwise outer-loop to the anti-clockwise inner. For passenger trains I think this is feasible by (after a few laps) "terminating" in the station and the engine (if its not a DMU) running round to the other end of the train. But for goods trains, its not so easy. To do the same would involve stopping them in the station platform (weird!) unless another way can be found that looks less odd. On the plus side this version creates more scope for lineside industries and there are no curves in the "red zone."

So I'm torn between the two, whilst equally conscious both can probably be improved on. Comments and advice very welcome! I know this sort of layout is not everyone's cup of tea but suspend disbelief and roll with me for a bit  

[Zomboid]

I think you've got a pretty solid concept there. Do you want to follow the practices of any particular period or company?

[ITG]

As you are limited to set track, by definition you will be using dead frog points - so one key decision made. What about DCC v DC? Although either is viable, the former maybe simpler for the reverse loop (auto reverse module), and if you plan to continue /expand when back in UK it may make sense to make the DCC v DC decision now, or at least ensure you build flexibility for change later. Maybe the key difference now for your lad, is the choice around isolating spare locos using D.C., or selecting loco number on controller using DCC.  

[Pete the Elaner]

I prefer the simpler plan (without the reverse loop) because it is quicker to get running. I would prefer this for several reasons:

 

You said you wanted to start with something simple to learn from.

I know plenty of people (myself included) who have been too ambitious too early & the layout ends up just being a disappointment. This is a trap I have seen many fall into, including myself.

 

It is important to get your layout running as quickly as possible. Running trains on it gives your enthusiasm a massive boost. I can't emphasise this enough. The simpler it is, the quicker you will get to this point.

 

If you have a toddler, does he want to make buildings or run trains? I can guess the answer to that.

 

& above all, enjoy it.

[Keith Addenbrooke]

Hi there.  I’d agree with the comments above.  I take it the shaded square represents the “unreachable space”? If so, good idea to mark it on now.  I would certainly favour the second scheme without the reversing loop, as it’s such a tight fit (as drawn it has a point on the table joint, but that could move).  Personally I’d omit the industry siding that crosses the square too and keep shunting well within reach.

The arrangement of crossovers means it is easy for trains to terminate, run-round and depart but advice I’ve had is to make sure any Setrack Curved Points are laid carefully to avoid problems (especially running trains at speed).

Given that making progress sounds like a high priority, the second scheme looks like it would make a good start to me,

 

By the way, in my experience: toddlers like to try and catch moving trains.

Edited October 19, 2020 by Keith Addenbrooke

[Chimer]

The return loop would come into its own at phase 2, of course, but as you have noted it is very tight, and it would introduce elements of second-year electrickery from the start.  The advantage of set-track is that you can try both designs and see if you like them / if they work, laying out the goods yard with whichever points you've got left once you've decided.  You'll probably find a couple of metres of flexi useful from the start to fill the odd gaps that set-track geometry always seems to inflict on you, but don't try making radius 2 curves out of it!

 

If you settle on the second design, I think I would be tempted to confine routine goods ops to the inner circuit, just making sure one of the sidings towards the top of the plan is long enough to back the goods train into to get it out of the way (perfectly prototypical - a lie-by siding).  Don't forget running round goods trains is complicated by the existence of the brake van , if your trains use one.

 

Best of luck!

[RobinofLoxley]

Both layouts look pretty good; you are pushing the limits at the board edges. The layout without the reversing loop looks better, and as you are not in the steam era there is no absolute requirement to reverse anything.

And remember, most of the assets so to speak will pack up into quite a small package for transport when you move. The baseboards can be left behind.

[DCB]

The layout with the return loop is more practical with the branch to the terminus station, otherwise reversing a train will be challenging.   You are very close to the baseboard edge so a lip will be necessary, may be 1" or so high, enough to stop an errant "Perky" travelling at 250mph from flying across the room, just as long as the trains actually clear the lip that's enough.

Wiring the reverse loop will need a bit of thought, easiest way is a double pole double throw switch, stop the train on the reversing track flip the switch, reverse the controller and drive on.

The track can also be tweaked away from the end by re locating the branch point, it would need a custom bit of track to match a (2nd radius) Curved point to a 3rd radius curve but by using a 3rd radius branch curve around the outside of the 3rd radius main line it should work as long as no one stops a train too close to the point where the tracks converge.   See doodle

 

 

Edited October 22, 2020 by DavidCBroad
Wrong Picture

[Glob-Ally]

Wow thank you all for such quick and thoughtful responses! It’s nice to know I’m not barking up completely the wrong tree! (3 months ago I’m sure I would have been - other threads on this forum have really helped in that regard)

 

To pick up a few of the individual points first:

 

@ITG I haven’t finally decided yet but I’m leaning towards DCC, fairly strongly so should I decide to go with the reversing loop option (btw do you or others know with a DCC reversing loop module do you still have to stop the loco on the reversing section or can you drive it straight through non-stop?)  Functionality wise I prefer DCC. The argument for DC would be on cost grounds - this is supposed to be a practise getting-back-into-the-hobby-layout so making a big long-term investment like a decent DCC system feels a touch counter-intuitive.

 

@Keith Addenbrooke yes you are right  that the shaded area is the unreachable part. On reflection I think you’re right about avoiding a siding there - an automatic uncoupler failing there would be every bit as frustrating as derailing on some points! 
 

@DavidCBroad good idea on the lip - should be easy enough to attach to the side and make part of the scenery - a low wall marking the railway boundary for example. I’ve also been conscious of the branch line point being a pain but don’t feel I’m up to custom track yet! I think next time I’m in AnyRail I might experiment with moving the entire curved point crossover 22.5deg further in to the bend so that the branch point also moves round to where you have it marked while being able to remain 2nd radius. That might work.

 

@all-of-you thanks for thoughts on the two options. The fact it somewhat divided opinion indicates to me that neither is a crazy thought which is good! Looking ahead to phase 2 I really am keen for a way for trains to do out and back (with a few loops in the middle to space it out) from the branch. I am kind of envisaging me operating the branch and my boy driving the ovals then when he’s ready for a different train he sends me one up the branch and I prepare and send him a new one down. 
 

So as things stand that makes me like the reversing loop for the reasons David sets out. However I think I would change that view if either (a) it was just going to be a derailing nightmare; or (b) a plausible setup can be come up with for running the loco around goods trains (as I’ll be mainly modern era brake vans not essential) that doesn’t involve parking it in the station like it’s a passenger train! 

If anyone has experience of (a) or a clever idea for (b) I’m all ears!
 

And thanks again for the comments so far!

 

Ally

[ITG]

 @Glob-AllyI haven’t finally decided yet but I’m leaning towards DCC, fairly strongly so should I decide to go with the reversing loop option (btw do you or others know with a DCC reversing loop module do you still have to stop the loco on the reversing section or can you drive it straight through non-stop?)

 

no, you do not have to stop the loco at all. It is completely seamless.

 

@Glob-AllyFunctionality wise I prefer DCC. The argument for DC would be on cost grounds 
 

Understood..... but be careful that as you have no historical allegiance or commitment to DC, the added easy-to-access goodies of sound, lights, etc do not later tempt you. That could lead to a cost-of-change. Providing you buy DCC-ready locos at the onset, adding decoders would at least mean you could still use the pre-existing locos. Although the power and control systems would need changing. 

[Chimer]

Operating goods trains, using plan 2:  arrive on scene, laps round outer circuit, dive across crossover bottom right and straight into goods yard (may need a longer "arrivals" siding), shunt as required using second loco, take reformed train out onto inner circuit (and eventually off scene) using second loco, original loco subsequently departs "light engine" for next duty.

 

Something else that would be marginally easier using DCC, to avoid the need to isolate first loco during shunting.

 

Would that work for you?

[OhOh]

.

 

 

Edited March 23, 2021 by OhOh

[Zomboid]

I'd put a facing crossover along the top so trains to/from the top left branch can run on the correct line all the way round (I'd use larger radius points, the Hornby "Express" points would work if sectional track is important).

 

The curved crossover on the left end would be a bit redundant in that case - can it be switched round so the return loop works bi-directionally?

[OhOh]

.

 

Edited March 23, 2021 by OhOh
Added text.

[Zomboid]

It's those curved crossovers. They almost-but-not-quite work in Anyrail. I suspect there's enough slop when you put the actual track sections together than a mm here or there can be accommodated. All of those crossovers have a purpose now, though 3 in such a small oval seems pretty profligate, they're all necessary unless extended wrong-line running is considered acceptable.

[RobinofLoxley]

38 minutes ago, Zomboid said:

It's those curved crossovers. They almost-but-not-quite work in Anyrail. I suspect there's enough slop when you put the actual track sections together than a mm here or there can be accommodated. All of those crossovers have a purpose now, though 3 in such a small oval seems pretty profligate, they're all necessary unless extended wrong-line running is considered acceptable.

I think that if the OP took the track plan apart and reassembled it joint by joint starting with the top right hand curves that it would all fit together properly. Its just a quirk of Anyrail how its come out with so many not-quite 100% joins.

[Glob-Ally]

Thank you all for another round of fantastic comments.

 

@Chimer I think that could work, yes. The reason I hesitate is that what you describe is basically what I'm hoping to do at the end of the branch line when I build that in Phase 2! So I don't necessarily want to do the same operations twice. But this may be what I come back to if the reversing loop proves impractical.

 

@DavidCBroad I had a go today at putting your idea on moving the branchline point in to anyrail. Unfortunately it meant that the branch line curve went off the back of the board (unless I dropped it to 1st radius which I'm not willing to do given the stock I want to run). To avoid that I'd have to move the ovals towards the front to the point where I would have to remove the front platform and even then it would be tight. So nice thinking but unfortunately it only succeeds in transferring the problem of being close to the baseboard edge from the short sides to the long sides!

 

@OhOhthanks for the suggestions. You have indeed correctly identified where phase 2 is planned for! Your suggestion definitely eases the pressure at the edges of the board, but as you say having the rear crossover in the unreachable zone doesn't really work. I'm also reluctant to lose the start of the branch line (even in phase 1 I like the idea of having it as an off-stage spot for changing trains over) but I recognise this may prove necessary if putting the branch line point on the curve proves just too tight.

 

I have been trying to figure out if there's a way to have a curved point going from 3rd to 4th radius instead of 2nd to 3rd to start the branchline but can't see a combination of track that makes the geometry work. Set-track curved points are too tight and streamline points too gentle. Any bright ideas welcome!

[OhOh]

43 minutes ago, Glob-Ally said:

I have been trying to figure out if there's a way to have a curved point going from 3rd to 4th radius instead of 2nd to 3rd to start the branchline but can't see a combination of track that makes the geometry work. Set-track curved points are too tight and streamline points too gentle. Any bright ideas welcome!

Yes, as you've discovered, the curved points can be quite difficult/frustrating to work with 

 

Again keeping to Setrack radii, I've had another little play-around: lengthening the "branch" as much as I think possible without using flex-track on part of the outer curve at the RHS. It should now be usable for fiddling/storage of a decent length train prior to phase 2.  The x-over has had to go and the point off of the middle of the reverse curve moved a little so as to avoid the joint in the baseboards.

[OhOh]

.

Edited March 23, 2021 by OhOh

[DCB]

1 hour ago, Glob-Ally said:

Thank you all for another round of fantastic comments.

 

 

@DavidCBroad I had a go today at putting your idea on moving the branchline point in to anyrail. Unfortunately it meant that the branch line curve went off the back of the board (unless I dropped it to 1st radius which I'm not willing to do given the stock I want to run). To avoid that I'd have to move the ovals towards the front to the point where I would have to remove the front platform and even then it would be tight. So nice thinking but unfortunately it only succeeds in transferring the problem of being close to the baseboard edge from the short sides to the long sides!

 

 

I have been trying to figure out if there's a way to have a curved point going from 3rd to 4th radius instead of 2nd to 3rd to start the branchline but can't see a combination of track that makes the geometry work. Set-track curved points are too tight and streamline points too gentle. Any bright ideas welcome!

You could use a standard curved point and a third radius outer curve to swing the branch back closer to the other tracks. It would need a custom track piece as the curve point is 2nd radius in an otherwise 3rd radius curve.   I amended my drawing to show this.  See anyrail pic .

[OhOh]

On 22/10/2020 at 17:59, DavidCBroad said:

You could use a standard curved point and a third radius outer curve to swing the branch back closer to the other tracks. It would need a custom track piece as the curve point is 2nd radius in an otherwise 3rd radius curve.   I amended my drawing to show this.  See anyrail pic .

 

 

Edited March 23, 2021 by OhOh

[Glob-Ally]

Dear all, thank you again for the combination of sage advice and creative thinking last year when I started planning this. Things have since moved forward apace - we are now in the apartment, the tables are bought and assembled and have been covered in 4mm cork. And over Christmas I laid some 1:1 scale track out and started experimenting. 

 

Inevitably though there are a few changes! The biggest one was that in setting up the room my wife decided (on the spot when the furniture delivery guy brought the sofa bed while I was at work) that it would be better if we flipped the room and put the railway and sofa bed along the opposite walls to those originally planned. The room is rectangular so the space available is identical but it now means the Phase 2 branch line will go off to the top right of diagram instead of top left. No big deal I thought... until I stopped to think about it. Actually it IS a big deal. Although I'm far from wedded to prototype I do want to have left hand running and trains entering from the top right means they will now circuit the inner loop first and then the outer loop. That in turn changes lots of other calculations. It was clear a simple flip of the plan wouldn't work and some tweaking would be needed.

 

Secondly, I was happy to discover having laid out some actual track on the actual tables that I can actually reach further than I thought - at least if its simply a case of giving things a prod because they've stalled or flipping a point lever. So less of the back of the board is off limits for pointwork.

 

Finally, I have decided that during Phase One I will stick to DC rather than going to DCC. When I sat down and thought about it in the cold light of day I reminded myself that part of the point of this is to check that I do actually enjoy this hobby! Investing extra cash up front felt not really in the spirit of this, and although I could have gone for one of the cheaper end DCC systems I thought if I'm going to make the investment of buying a system it would be better to get one that will last - and when you then add in getting two controllers so the boy can join in and a reversing loop module to fit the clever designs you all helped me with before... it ain't cheap. So I've put my foot down with myself and decided to stick with DC for the time being. (I've promised myself that if I make good progress on Phase 1 in the next 18 months, a DCC system can go on the 2022 birthday list to kickstart Phase 2!) As a result I'll be working off variants of the plan without the reversing loop.

 

And so here is the revised edition I've come up with, based on these three changes plus all your helpful feedback before. As before, trains will enter from the siding at the back. They'll now immediately cross the crossover and run as many circuits as I feel like anti-clockwise on the inner loop. After that:

- Passenger trains will terminate in the station, the loco will run off to the shed, and another loco will leave the shed and loop round on to the other end of the train. It will then pull it out over the right hand curved points to the outer loop, do as many circuits as required and then exit off the branch. Obviously for DMU trains they can simply reverse without the loco change.

- Goods trains will operate on an American-style drop-off/pick-up basis, reversing in to sidings. They'll first handle the fuel by the diesel depot, then the three sidings towards the bottom left. Once those are complete the loco will detach and head for the shed, and another loco will come from shed to the other end of the train (no brake vans as I'm looking at 80s/90s era, but we'll have to temporarily pretend the inner loop is actually a lie-by siding as there isn't room for a separate one). It'll take the train across the left hand curved points on to the outer loop before shunting the siding in the very bottom right and the other two towards the bottom right (bringing to a halt passenger traffic on the inner loop while it does as an interesting operational twist). Then it will depart off-scene up the branch. 

 

That is obviously all quite involved, compared to a train simply coming on-scene, lapping, taking the reverse loop, lapping in the opposite direction and then departing. But I said at the outset I actively want the operations to be interesting and challenging, and now they will be. The design deliberately builds in 8 locations for storing goods wagons as my tentative plans for Phase 2 include an Inglenook Shunting Puzzle goods yard and so having somewhere for the wagons to then go will add to this (and finding and building suitable industry kits will be good practice). But of course, when the boy is a bit bigger and ready to play trains, we can simply set all the points for the two loops and race trains around them in and out of the tunnels. 

 

So I think it works. But before I order the remaining track required, I'd love a final sense-check that I haven't missed something obvious! One specific question I had was about the wiring and the (Hornby/Peco set-track) diamond crossing at the bottom of the plan. I presume these are insulated so that the crossing tracks don't touch, and therefore the two sidings would continue to be operable from the controller for the outer loop despite the route in crossing the inner loop?

[Chimer]

The diamond electrickery question - yes I believe so.

 

One suggestion - an addditional trailing crossover as shown (hopefully the inner curve is 2nd radius and the point fits), used together with the crossover bottom right, would enable you to reverse trains in either platform by running round using the other platform road, regaining the correct line after departure.  To me, this would somehow feel a bit more realistic than getting to the other end of a train on the inner circuit by doing a full circuit through the countryside.

 

 

And a second thought - until you can start phase 2, using cassettes on the fiddle siding could save you the world of pain involved in rerailing stock in a tight spot .....

 

Cheers, Chris

[Robert Stokes]

Hello, and may I first say that I hope you get as much enjoyment from railway modelling as I have over many years.

 

Just one piece of advice. In my experience (admittedly many years ago) curved set-track points are a recipe for trouble. Try to avoid them if you possibly can.

 

Good luck with the project.

 

Robert

Edited January 17, 2021 by Robert Stokes