Too much space?

[Joseph_Pestell]

Here’s a problem for those who like layout design. And it’s a bit different from the usual squeezing a quart into a pint pot.

After numerous changes in life over the last year, I am altering course and making sure that I have time and place to create that “layout of a lifetime”. The model railway room is an 11m x 11m full-height attic in a mansard roof, effectively a second floor where the servants would have lived many years ago. It is currently split into six rooms and a landing but I don’t anticipate any difficulty in removing most of the partitions. I will post a photo when I have one that I have taken myself.

From that 11m x 11m, we have to take out from the middle an 7m x 2m space where the stairs come up onto a landing, which I will keep so as to separate the layout from the rest of the house which will be a building site for some time to come. So I am left with a U-shaped room of 107m2. 

Scale is 4mm (00) and I want to keep to a minimum of 1m20 radius curves in visible parts as there will be a 45mm track-centre. The other “given” is that it is BR ex-Midland.

I want something that can be up and running within a reasonable timeframe. So, my intention is that it should be a fairly narrow shelf layout around the U-shaped room. The partitions have some rather useful 75mm x 75mm timber uprights that will be ideal to screw brackets into. This should give roughly a 55m continuous run, excluding the fiddleyard, and still leave potential for future development in the rest of the room.

I have been doodling on paper quite a lot over Xmas, the track planning computer is at home, and come up with three possible options, but I am sure that there could be others:

1)     Something based on the Settle and Carlisle (one quarry, one station, one viaduct, Ais Gill summit);

2)     Something based on the never-built West Riding Lines branch from Dewsbury to Bradford via Huddersfield and Halifax;

3)     Some thing based of the never-completed main West Riding Line centred on the station at Dewsbury.

 

Perhaps there are better solutions? Running reverse loop to reverse loop would avoid any duck-under or lifting flap. Reverse loop to helix to reverse loop could an even longer run.

[DCB]

That is pretty big. almost US size, maybe nick some of their concepts, peninsulas etc but arranged for UK double track and UK station layouts.  Don't forget trains will take an appreciable time to run that distance, which can be annoying if they are off scene but still en route to storage so you can't run the next. Ours is not half that size yet we forget slow running trans are moving, and cause chaos changing points under trains etc.

  Can you get a return loop in at the ends of the U ok?  If not can you not run round the fourth side for a continuous run?   If you can arrange return loops it makes operation more interesting as otherwise some trains run forever clockwise and others anti clockwise.   It makes a big difference how many people will operate, but don't disregard the time aspect or the walking distance from one end to the other.    I would keep the operating wells nice and big, its a pain to keep asking people to let you past.   Still its a great problem to have.

[Kris]

That is an exciting space. If I had a space like that I would look at ways in which I could break the project down into chunks to make it feel more manageable. 

 

I would then plan the ultimate layout. 2 stations on the main line (one major one minor either side of the fiddle yard so there is a good run between them). I would then consider if I could include a branch line in to the plan. 

[Zomboid]

I think the critical things to consider are, as for just about any layout:

- how many operators are you designing for?

- what kind of operation do you enjoy?

- how much time and money do you have to put into this?

 

I think return loops are likely to be your friend here. But are you someone who wants to run 130 different model trains, or can the same equipment represent 5 or more different services? (Basically do you need a huge storage yard?)

 

 

[bmthtrains - David]

I’m envious of your space! Another thing to consider is whether you want one enormous layout or several. Are your interests and existing stock one era or location specific, or would multiple layouts suit better? 

 

David 

[Harlequin]

Very interesting... It certainly makes a change from the usual fare on here!

 

Here's a plan with a 305mm grid to allow for comparison with other plans. (The space is roughly 36ft square for those who still think in Imperial.)

(Scaled up from 4mm to actual size that would be roughly 838m / 915 yards square.)

 

Do the stairs rise towards the centre of the space or towards one of the walls?

Do the mansard roof slopes mean you can't stand upright near the walls in places? Would they impose restrictions on the height of the baseboards or height of backscenes anywhere?

 

This space is going to take a lot of time, effort and money to fill! Will you be working on it alone or will you get helpers/workers in?

 

 

Edited December 29, 2020 by Harlequin

[RJS1977]

First thoughts from me:

 

Cyril Freezer wrote on numerous occasions that 20' x 12' was the 'desirable maximum' in terms of the complexity of layout one person could handle (he later reduced that down to 16' x 8'). That wasn't to say that bigger layouts couldn't be built, but that if they were, they could only really be enlargements of smaller plans (i.e. more distance between stations, rather than an increase in complexity) and as such didn't really justify the expense in building and heating a room that large. Certainly my father and I find his 32' long layout (with one major station) about as much as we can cope with.

 

Second, with the room being a U shape, you aren't going to be able to see the whole layout from any one position. I was lucky, lucky, lucky enough to visit Pete Waterman's layout last year. Very nice layout - but one major snag. The trains were driven from and to the fiddle yard which was in a separate room to the rest of the layout. This meant the driver couldn't see the positions of signals, points and platforms on the main layout and could do little more than drive a train round non-stop and back to the fiddle yard again. There are three ways round this which can either be taken individually or together:

 

1) Walkaround controls (possibly using a mobile phone) so you can follow a train round the room as you drive it.

2) Controlling the layout from the 'bottom' of the U with CCTV covering the areas of the layout (fiddle yards?) that you can't see.

3) A degree of automation in the fiddle yards so that a train arrives in the fiddle yard and another one comes back.

 

I wholeheartedly agree with the reversing loop idea - my father's layout has reversing loops on each end and it's so much more satisfying sending a train out on the Up line and having it return on the Down line than just having it chasing its tail. However it's best if you can incorporate a degree of automatic block control (as we have done) so it isn't just the same train going round all the time - especially if it's a very long run.

 

Another advantage of reversing loops is that the layout can be constructed in a modular fashion - a relatively short section of layout to begin with, then the loops can be detached and moved along to enable a new module to be dropped in. That way you can get something up and running much quicker than if you had to lay the main line all round the room from the outset.

 

David asked whether it could be possible to connect across the ends of the U. Whilst my preference is for reversing loops, it may be worth including such a connection for coal or mineral trains so that loaded wagons go one way and empties come back.

[Kris]

3 hours ago, RJS1977 said:

First thoughts from me:

 

Cyril Freezer wrote on numerous occasions that 20' x 12' was the 'desirable maximum' in terms of the complexity of layout one person could handle (he later reduced that down to 16' x 8'). That wasn't to say that bigger layouts couldn't be built, but that if they were, they could only really be enlargements of smaller plans (i.e. more distance between stations, rather than an increase in complexity) and as such didn't really justify the expense in building and heating a room that large. 

 

He loved the operation side of railway modelling rather than a railway in scenery approach. With the size that is available here railway in scenery with operating potential in some locations is very achievable. 

[Nearholmer]

I've got nothing useful to add, but will watch this with great interest!

 

If I was presented with that space, my first reaction would be to panic, I think, unless I'd simultaneously won the pools, because the time needed to develop even a fairly simple scheme to make good use of it would be so great - the pools win would permit all the carpentry to be contracted-out, of course.

 

TBH, even with the pools win, I'm not sure I'd want to use all that space, even in my favoured old-style 0 gauge, because the maintenance burden might get too great.

 

Step 1: Start a model railway club.

[pirouets]

Can I throw in the mix the idea of something that can grow in chunks such as stage 1 being fiddle yard and a station that on its own makes a complete layout, but the feeds in to further stages that can evolve over time.

 

I think it was Little Long Drag by David Jenkinson that got torn up after 2 years as he had only run things once or twice. That as in 32 * 16 if my memory is correct.

[Schooner]

What an opportunity!

 

Whilst in no position to offer advice, I have done a little planning for a not dissimilar space. Please forgive the rush-job, but adapted to your room (thanks @Harlequin)  the idea would look something like:

Sorry about the presentation...looking at it again I'd have been better to just write up the idea and do a better another time! To get the pics to fit (from the SRS and the NLS), I've had to crush the depiction of the circuits. Really, you have room for 3'-wide storage yards, 3'-wide access wells and 4-5' scenic board width if desired - making use of access* from both sides - and still have the two stations in plenty of breathing room and have plenty of room out 'front' to operate in comfort**. If Phil will forgive me leaning on his work again, the below would be a better representation of the top circuit, for example:

 

*Oh, speaking of I see I forgot to write 'access well' in the middle of the top circuit.

**Wheelie-chair?! Worth thinking about...

 

The two map grabs are roughly to scale. Information on the pair of Henley-in-Arden stations here for the through and here for the BLT, from the excellent Warwickshire Railways. 

 

There's nothing very clever about the plan, so I won't go on about it - you can see how it works  With the addition of a 'specialisation' to the lower circuit (private industrial system/MPD/extended cameo etc to taste), all operational bases you could desire would be covered...including having a place to just let trains run!

 

Again, apologies for not putting in a bit more time and effort to this post, needs must, but perhaps it will be of some use. Even if helps to rule out some things then it will have been worth it!

 

Cheers, and good luck! Following with interest

 

Schooner

 

[mdvle]

11 hours ago, Joseph_Pestell said:

I want something that can be up and running within a reasonable timeframe. So, my intention is that it should be a fairly narrow shelf layout around the U-shaped room.

 

Added advantage - less scenery.

 

If you go for the return loops idea as suggested, then make one/both of them temporary and movable.  That done, you can then choose to start with a segment that provides you with immediate interest - say the viaduct or a station - and have the return loops at each end of that segment.

 

Then as you finish and move to the next segment you simply shift the appropriate return loop to its "next" position and build between the return loop and what you have already finished.

 

Eventually the rest of the layout is done and you can finish the return loops.

 

In this way you can be operating quickly and keep everything reasonably manageable as you go.

 

 

11 hours ago, Joseph_Pestell said:

1)     Something based on the Settle and Carlisle (one quarry, one station, one viaduct, Ais Gill summit);

2)     Something based on the never-built West Riding Lines branch from Dewsbury to Bradford via Huddersfield and Halifax;

3)     Some thing based of the never-completed main West Riding Line centred on the station at Dewsbury.

 

Certainly number 1 suggests your main interest is just having trains run, and not interested in a lot (if any) switching.

 

If so, then perhaps allow the design to reflect somewhere you can comfortably sit in a chair and just watch the trains (or alternately put your comfortable chair on something to make it easily moved to change locations), and choose a layout height that makes that possible.

[Keith Addenbrooke]

Hi Joseph - I’d agree with the contributions already posted (and I note the way you’ve carefully phrased the title of thread too).  Reference has already been made to this kind of space being more akin to those used by larger US layouts.  I don't know if this helps, but some years ago now (2003) Kalmbach published an Iain Rice book called “Mid-sized and Manageable” Track Plans (the clue is in the title).  Along with the usual portfolio of ideas, I think there were some helpful chapters on the ‘project planning’ and ‘project management’ aspects of such a venture, which I’d imagine apply just as well on both sides of the pond.  Unfortunately the book is out of print now and I don’t have a copy I can refer to, but it might be worth seeing if one is available / can be borrowed if it helps.

To be honest, my first thought was to use half the space for a layout and keep half for other social interests / hobbies (and family storage?).  Either that or a shelf layout round the edges with plenty of open space (again for other uses) in the centre.  I certainly wouldn’t fancy carting all the wood needed to fill the space with layout up to an attic: I saw a video of a very nice basement empire recently where the builder mentioned they took a break of five years from building the layout a while back, before the enthusiasm kicked in again!  Be interesting to see what transpires, Keith.

[SHMD]

A friend of mine once asked me for advice on his new large loft space usage.

 

I recommended a double track roundy-roundy, with storage sidings, BUT a branch so that users would have to drive a train and manage wagon source-destinations.

This branch proved, by far, the most popular part of the railway during running sessions - with both the owner and visitors.

 

Whilst there was always something running, on the main lines, there was little or no operator interaction with them. Sometimes the same two trains would be running none-stop for over an hour before we noticed that  there should be a change of train!

 

 

Kev.

[RJS1977]

The other advantage of building the layout in a modular form , gradually moving the reversing loops further apart as you insert further boards, is that if circumstances dictate that you have to move house in the future, it should be easier to rebuild the layout in a new form at the new address.

 

[Nearholmer]

Although the chances of me ever having so much space are zero, this is a seductive topic .......

 

Having thought about it, I think RJS is onto something when he talks about adding no complexity, only distance. On that basis my call would be the long-thing dog-bone, most of it as a two-track railway on thin shelves, but with two termini, which would branch-off close to the beginnings of the bone-ends, one in each "wing" of the room. The termini wouldn't be whoppers, only two platforms each probably, to take about five or six car trains, maybe be one 'city' and the other 'seaside/harbour'. 70%+ of the space would be railway-free, for other uses.

 

Operation when alone would be terminus to return-loop (with the option of circulating via both bone-ends to really prolong a run). When pals came to play, operation would be terminus to terminus, with the bone again being used to prolong the run.

 

It would effectively be my present layout, stretched-out long and thin, whereas it is now very short and fat.

 

If that was achieved, and energy, money, and time was left, I might develop one of the circuit/terminus junctions into an actual junction station along one of the many walls.

 

PS: The seaward end is definitely shaping-up to be very like Padstow in my mind, so only one platform, and the London end is a sort of up-market Minories, one platform being for long-distance services, so not all of the trains from London go to the seaside, some are suburban services which dog-bone straight back. All of this is in old-fashioned 0 gauge, of course.

Edited December 30, 2020 by Nearholmer

[RobinofLoxley]

I don't know where to find it (the link) but somebody somewhere put a railway all round the top of the house representing the line from Oban to Glasgow with all stations between modelled. 

 

Remember that with automation the relationship between model size and operability has been completely changed.

 

I would also caution you that as someone building a loft layout in a U shape with 8M legs that there has to be a tradeoff between the amount of laid track and the amount and standard of buildings and scenery that can be contemplated over a medium timescale. I've noted that a lot of large layouts one can find aren't even fully ballasted. Large layouts also diverge more from prototypical.

 

But do get creative with the layout plan you owe it to the space. Don't go with Freezer principles designed for a fraction of the space. Just saying

 

[Chimer]

I think this would be my starting point (assuming Phil's plan is correct).  Scenic breaks at the ends of the brown lines (that's supposed to be the baseboard edge) and the return loops and storage roads on bare baseboards.  A nice S&C station fitted into 36' x 3' with sweeping curves into bulges at the ends should be enough scenery for anybody ......

 

But if you do finish that, you can redesign the loops and storage to add Ais Gill summit on one side wall and Ribblehead viaduct on the other ......

 

Or just think what you could do in 2mm!!

 

 

[RJS1977]

2 hours ago, RobinofLoxley said:

Remember that with automation the relationship between model size and operability has been completely changed.

 

 

Indeed it has, although automated systems take some time to set up and maintain (my father has had a few issues with his automated system recently - mostly down to broken reed switches). And of course, even the cleverest automated systems only really work for block working and shuttle trains. Shunting, running round, loco changes etc all still need to be done manually.

 

That said, automated systems can work very well and allow manual shunting, making up trains etc to go on on parts of the layout whilst other trains lap the circuit. One of my favourite tricks on my father's layout is to make up a train in the goods yard, send it out, bring another one in and reform it, send that out etc. (On one occasion my father set I think four trains running round his circuit then got a phone call. In a rush to answer the phone, and thinking he wouldn't be long, he left the trains running. However the call required him to sort out some paperwork, and by the time he'd done that it was lunchtime. After he'd finished washing up, he was on his way to the bathroom and on passing the loft hatch thought "What's that sound I can hear?" Much to his surprise, the trains were still lapping happily two hours after he had left them!)

[peach james]

The first q that I have is _can_ the trains go all the way around the room?  Even an 11m*11m space starts to shrink fairly quickly if you have to deal with - 1.3m at each corner.  8m is nothing to sneeze at though- the main scenic part of Long Marton fits into a 36' long room, including similar curves at each end.

 

The advantage of being able to go around the entire "outside" is that it means that you could have trains running from place to place.  I would think of DCC and automation as being both very useful in this circumstances. 

If I was starting with those sorts of constraints (which are close to what I have, tbh), I would do similar to what I have done.  I would start with a common module size- figure out what two people can move down the flight of stairs, and go from there.  (probably 1m wide *2m long * 0.6m thick or so).  That becomes your module size to design around- all the sections of the layout then fit onto that.  It means that when you need to wire a section, you can flip it onto a pair of sawhorses, clamp it down, and wire it without being under it.  I wouldn't worry about the outside "loop" track being as modular- that is probably fixed to the house.  It's just that if you build (for instance) a 15 track staging yard, you won't ever want to build another unless you _have_ to.  

 

I would build a double track loop around the outside, with one of the walls having a substantial storage yard.  Long Marton's big staging yard is 15 tracks, on 30" wide baseboards.  This then has another layer on top of it by 12".  Any less is an access problem- but if you design it in now, then you _could_ build another section of layout on top.

Then, it comes down to what operations YOU want.  If you want a viaduct, that will take a substantial area on one of the walls.  If you want somewhere to shunt, that could run up the middle wall on one side or the other.  If you want a grand junction, that too is possible.  If you want Carlisle Citadel- well, that might not QUITE fit   Given that you have a 11m run around each wall, I would be tempted to design around at least 2 levels, depending on how tall the space is (and how tall you are).  

I'd also consider how old you are- this is not a project to undertake if you are 78 years old, tbh.  The other consideration is how much time you want to put into this, and how much money you can afford to put into it.  They are basically inverse- if you have lots of time (like say, are 44 years old...) and not much money, then you can afford to spend time instead of money for some things.  If you are older or have other hobbies that eat time, I suggest that you will end up spending $ to compensate.

 

If you can find some interested people, forming a bit of a club to build it could be a good way forward.  It's going to be in your house though, so it's more like "the JPR, take it or leave it" than a traditional UK club.  

I know that several of the US design books are probably better suited from a _design_ prospective for figuring out the large chunk bits of this space.  If it was me, I would also do what you are doing- ask for help before you start cutting wood.  It's cheaper that way

I prefer layouts without duck unders- even though I am a 44 year old, they keep seeming to get harder to use.  That is certainly a consideration.  I'm also a fan of the "mushroom" design layouts, though they require a fairly tall (8' or more) space to work effectively.  

I look forward to trying to help,

James

 

[Chimer]

Phase 2 .... down to 3' radius in the loops I'm afraid .....

 

[Keith Addenbrooke]

While we’re at the stage of suggesting broad schematics, @Harlequin’s rendering of the space reminded me of another Iain Rice concept plan, this time from his book of ‘Shelf Layout’ plans for US outline layouts (also published by Kalmbach).  Very roughly (FingerNail rather than AnyRail), it looks a bit like this:

 

 

It was designed for a 19’ x 23’ basement, so the stairs come down into the layout room instead of up, and the scheme is point-to-point (which may rule it out here), but it makes good use of the space using a wall-mounted shelf format, so I’ll put it on the table.  I’m afraid I’m not familiar enough with the OP’s suggested areas to know if this type of idea might fit or not.

Edited October 7, 2022 by Keith Addenbrooke
Reinstating photos

[Harlequin]

My first idea is to use the space to do something really panoramic using two of the walls and one of the "lobes" of the room. The other "lobe" would be devoted to all the support facilities, storage, reversing, workbench, kitchenette (what a lovely word...), boxes full of stuff, etc.

 

Like James I too suggest bridging the stairwell with simple double track (boxed in, close to the wall) so that trains can simply run around the room without reversing and/or get back to storage without having to appear on scene again.

 

I also suggest not fixing the main scenic area to the walls but having it freestanding with a usable access space behind, maybe 768mm wide. This would do a lot of good things:

• Access from both sides allows the scenic baseboards to be wider than most people can manage. (You have the room so why not use it?)
• Moves the layout clear of the mansard slopes.
• Backscene can hang from ceiling (cloth or vinyl) some distance behind the scenic baseboards allowing clever lighting and thus avoiding the problem of shadows of scenic elements being cast on the background.
• Vastly increases the photographic potential.

 

(I like some of the suggestions above about modular design and movable reversing loops as the layout expands, BTW.)

 

Edited December 31, 2020 by Harlequin

[Nearholmer]

50 minutes ago, Keith Addenbrooke said:

While we’re at the stage of suggesting broad schematics,

The broad schematic I had in mind was as below, mirrored at the opposite end, the basic shelf-dog-bone being Stage 1, and the Termini Stages 2 and 3 respectively.

 

 

Having sweeping curves and acres of scenery, or not, is a matter of personal taste - I wouldn’t, because I would prefer to be able to use the rest of the room, beyond a shelf about 18” wide, for other things. I’d treat the shelf like a long-thin slice through the scenery no further than the railway fence-line.

 

Again a matter of taste, but I probably wouldn’t add storage loops, but confine the stock on the layout to that needed to run the service, because I have a ‘thing’ about operations. The loop(s) on the bone-ends would be to hold slow trains or short-workings in transit, to allow through trains to pass them en-route.

 

 

 

 

[Harlequin]

Hey, it just occurred to me that this situation is a bit like that TV programme, "Your House Made Perfect", where the homeowners are shown concepts for re-doing their house using Virtual Reality headsets.

 

The competing concepts are practical and radical in varying degrees and you can never predict which the homeowners will choose. (I usually like the radical ideas from the cool hippy architect, even though they can be a bit bonkers sometimes.)

 

Edited December 31, 2020 by Harlequin