Too much space?

[Joseph_Pestell]

Many thanks for so many inputs and good ideas.

 

I am sat in the car at the moment using someone else's WiFi so not the best conditions for writing a long reply.

 

I had already considered the option of going across the stairwell. There is certainly enough space there and it does open up more options.

 

I like the idea of movable return loops. It would certainly make it a lot easier to break down the project into chunks. Coming down to 3ft radius is not a problem because the loops are single track.

 

I have looked at having more than one layout in the space and, if I live long enough, it could happen. But it seems a pity not to have a really good long run, trains in the open countryside.

 

I totally understand CJF's point about a 20' x 12' layout being a maximum for 1 person. But look at what he crammed into those 240ft2. What I will build here will be no more complex than that, just spread over a larger space. But I do hope to be able to recruit some friends for some of the layout building and operating.

 

The attic has vertical partitions all round as a lining to the sloped mansard. Above the attic, under the roof proper, is a large loft with joists 250mm deep.

 

Storage space and even workshop space is not an issue. There is about 120m2 of accommodation on both ground and first floors and pretty much the same again in the cellars.  

[Joseph_Pestell]

Just a couple of things to add.

 

Yes, I want to play trains. I don't want the computer to do it for me.

 

So the whole thing will be arranged as it would have been in the 1950s by way of a "closing switch" at signal boxes that are at locations that are not in operation. Throughout the layout, current to the track will be supplied by way of relays linked to signals and the signals interlocked with the turnouts - so no risk of operating a turnout below a moving train.

[peach james]

That means _a bunch_ of relays.  That's why I went the way I did with Long Marton- the first plans at home were for mechanical (relay) systems, then I started to figure out how many relays it would take to have the sequential staging loops pass trains to keep them filled, and I blanched, and went for DCC and track sections.  Mostly because even though I have some of the background, and had access at the time to someone who most definitely did have the background to do the LLD & math to reduce it to a minimum, I didn't hold up much confidence of getting it all right and working.

It can be done, there is at least one example of it here on RMWeb.  But, I tend to think that using software is a far easier way to deal than not.  The example that I can think of is "Lostock Junction" , if you google it, there should be a presentation about operating it as a scale layout.  It is a DC layout (started in the mid 1980's), and uses a bunch of operating positions to acchieve multi train operation.

 

It certainly can be done that the computer "only" runs the signalbox if the closing switch for each box is made.  Long Marton is programmed in the main to be run as the Signalbox, with no direct control of the trains happening by the "signalman"  (me !) , but being "in charge" of what happens within the signalbox.  (and drinking copious quantities of tea !).  It _can_ be programmed to do things the exact opposite way too- where I'd be driver, answering to the signals and not having to worry about the opposing train, just to collect the appropriate goods in the yard. 

 

The problem I can see with a more conventional DC power system is that each train is going to require your individual attention to advance it.  If you view this as a game, then it's the difference between turn based and real time- you cannot manage to run a system in real time, you can operate in turn based time.  A great example of that is the AFK on here- it's not a beautiful layout, but it is a wonderful one !  The advantage of interlacing a computer into the operation is that the layout can then move to being a real time layout with a single operator- or multi operators, and the computer replaces any operators who are not there, or would have "boring" jobs.  

 

Computer control in this case is quite separate from track power.  I would NOT recommend a 11x11m layout be wired for DC, at all.   The comparative ease of wiring a complex system with DCC vs DC makes DCC an easy choice for the track powering system.  It means that you can wire the layout in logical electrical units (working areas), and only have to worry about which rail (a or b) you are feeding within those units, rather than having to design and build electrical control panels with rotary switches to get enough controllers for multi train operation (4 way, probably...).  By using DCC to power trains, it forces obedience to signals and track condition- if not, then the train stops, whereas DC tends to avoid that due to the power routing problems of doing so.    It's easier to SPAD in DCC than in DC, because often in DC the signal is interlocked to the power supply for the next electrical section, rather than to the track condition...

 

I'll see if I can crack out a design- it may be in BlueBrick (Lego) software, in any case, it will be far more diagrammatic than scale at this point for ideas.   

The other question to answer here, I think, is how you envision operating this.  Are you thinking you want a layout that requires all your attention at one point, or are you thinking you want a layout you can stand back and watch the trains circulate on ?  Is there a scenic feature (tunnel, or viaduct) that defines your ideal?  Because if it was me, the walk into the room would be defined by that feature if at all possible- either station, cityscape, marshalling yard, goods yard, engine shed, viaduct, or moorland- that initial head up the stairs view should, to my mind, encompass that. 

Layouts to perhaps take a look at are Kingston Sub (https://www.facebook.com/KingstonSub/
AFK 

 

(Lostock)

and I think it is Leeds (City) Midland Side is the other one on here that is DC & has a large relay operated control system.  (though don't hold my feet to the fire on that !)

James

[Harlequin]

It's probably a good idea to have some storage, workshop space and tea-making facilities(!) on the same floor as the layout so that you don't always have to go downstairs and back up again when you need such things...

 

[Ravenser]

Standing back from this, the space is very much the sort of thing that the Yanks deal with, and I think your first step should be to get hold of a couple of the annual Model Railroader Planning specials, to immerse yourself in their rather different - and sophisticated - philosophy for big permanent layouts.

 

I see this as a space to build an operational railway system , rather than just an attempt to fit a "scenic continous circuit" like a distorted exhibition tailchaser into that space.

 

You mention that it needs to be ex MR , or at least LMS/LMR Midland Division , and your possibilities /temptations are saying strongly MR lines in Yorkshire    

 

Deep breath - I think you should seriously consider attempting a representational version of the West Riding Line project  complete. This would mean modelling Bradford Forster Square as it might have been  reconstructed, and Dewsbury Midland as the centre pieces. MMRS's exhibition layout shows that Dewsbury Midland would actually be operationally fairly simple, and the Liard's Bradfield Gloucester Square demonstrated that Bradford could be really quite manageable

 

At this point you probably need to throw in Shipley for good measure , with the lines to Leeds and to Skipton/Morecambe/Carlisle disappearing to off stage fiddle yards - "Staging" as the Yanks would call it.  The line south to Sheffield /Rotherham would need to be disposed of similarly - it might end up in a shared fiddle yard.

 

Ilkley could end up as a terminus on a peninsular to give you somewhere to terminate and reverse a local suburban service. At least half of the layout operations would require to be freight not passenger, and the space would suggest that you can and should have a modest marshalling yard in Bradford, allowing wagons to be worked to/from the local stations Shipley/Ilkley/Dewsbury as trips , then received /forwarded as long distance goods trains to other yards (ie the fiddle yards)

 

This would require you to be heavily dependant on quality  RTR materials (the US "good enough" philosophy , where the big picture is the target effect, not the exquisite fine detail of an individual loco). You would also need several operators to run it fully, but there should be potential to run a few express trains and give them legs in the landscape on your own. 

 

And a trade account with Metcalfe Models might become necessary....

 

I know that is radical thinking - but in the US , for this kind of space it is perfectly normal

 

P.S. - If I was gifted with this kind of space , I'd be thinking seriously about attempting Chiltern from Marylebone to Aylesbury/Banbury in OO  (though the GC London Extension might also be viable as a 6 coach express + 4-6-0 would be perfectly reasonable) . But I'm never likely to be in that position

Edited December 31, 2020 by Ravenser

[Zomboid]

I think if it were my project, I would do a variation on Peter Denny's Buckingham, with longer runs between the stations. And a return loop rather than a single ended set of storage sidings.

[ianathompson]

2 hours ago, peach james said:

A great example of that is the AFK on here- it's not a beautiful layout, but it is a wonderful one ! 

 

What? What?! B""""r and I thought that it was!

 

Joking apart I stuck with straightforward DC for the AFK because it is simple.

It is easy to understand and troubleshoot when things go wrong.

 

This is not quite such a minor consideration for a large layout.

I am just competing a rebuild of the major station, Lacono, which has around 50 separate electrical sections.

On re-assemly one slightly misaligned point polarity arm shut the job down for two hours until it was identified.

That is with a system designed with electrical "districts" fo isolate problems as far as possible.

 

The more locos, stock, points and signals that there are the more that there is to go wrong.

DCC and computers are just "black boxes" to many people, which are impossible to repair if they fail.

 

Ironically, when talking about automation, I have aired proposals for such a model on RMWeb, althought it will be rather smaller in scope than room sized!

 

Ian T

[Zomboid]

13 minutes ago, ianathompson said:

I stuck with straightforward DC for the AFK because it is simple

That rather depends on what you want to make it do. Loads of isolated sections, multiple controllers and lots of motorised points will end up far from simple.

 

But then if you're building a large, complex layout then there's no way to configure things in a simple manner.

[Flying Pig]

3 hours ago, Ravenser said:

You mention that it needs to be ex MR , or at least LMS/LMR Midland Division , and your possibilities /temptations are saying strongly MR lines in Yorkshire    

 

I don't know why people fixate on the Settle and Carlisle and Dewsbury.  The most interesting bits of the Midland were between Nottingham /Derby in the south and Normanton in the north, where it twined around half a dozen other companies in the coalfield.  The scope for modelling in this area is fantastic and it is largely ignored.

[Nearholmer]

A half-way house to automation might be to use software only to generate bell-codes, against a timeline set by the timetable, which is I think what Denny's "Automated Crispin" may have done. Or, maybe that, combined with a simple track-circuit-block on the main circulating lines, to avoid "rear enders", would be enough, leaving most of the fun of operating with the human train driver/signalman.

 

Certainly full automation wouldn't do it for me ..... my hobby is railways, not programming, although others I know see it differently.

[ianathompson]

35 minutes ago, Zomboid said:

That rather depends on what you want to make it do. Loads of isolated sections, multiple controllers and lots of motorised points will end up far from simple.

 

But then if you're building a large, complex layout then there's no way to configure things in a simple manner.

 

I totally agree with you on this point.

The  AFK is operated by myself, alone, and with no provision for multiple operators.

This is not because I am anti-social but because there is insufficient room within the multi-layered design to accommodate anyone else.

In any case my other hobbies require co-operation with other people so it is nice to be able to do what I want when I please without the need to round up an operating crew.

 

There are only three controllers, one for through running and one each for shunting in each of the two aisles.

In extremis the whole thing could be run with just one controller on a long flex.

 

Motorised points? No way. These add too many complications.

Mine work from rods at the trackside. Simple and easy to adjust.

 

 

It has been seen plenty of times before on here but there is enough to think about in determining polarities in the inset track without adding another layer of complications by motoriing the points.

 

Ian T

[RobinofLoxley]

One persons complexity is another's simplicity. It depends where your skills lie. I cant see any complexity in motorising a point, but there has to be a reason to do it.

[Zomboid]

Very true. I find it quite easy to write computer logic, but building a hard wired system to do the same thing would be catastrophic.

[RJS1977]

Different strokes for different folks....

 

My father's layout is analogue - partly because of the cost and time involved in converting a large fleet of locos going back to 1956, partly because we've found electronic track cleaners invaluable on a layout that big (which aren't compatible with DCC), and partly because a lot of the electronic tricks we've used (like an auto shuttle, station start/stops etc) would be either more complicated or more expensive (or both) in DCC.

 

As it is, we know how every circuit works as they are either of our own design and manufacture, or we have constructed them ourselves either from MERG kits or circuit diagrams by the likes of Roger Amos. All (or at least, most!) wiring is documented and often includes extra LED displays to break down the logic - hence we can track down faults relatively easily (a number of the circuits are relay-driven which I personally prefer as you can see, hear, and take meter readings throughout the circuit to diagnose any faults). Most, if not all, of the auto controls can be switched out and handed over to full manual control in the event of failure.

 

Not saying any approach is right or wrong - they are just different ways of skinning the same cat.

 

(A friend of mine has a very large and complicated DCC layout with block sections. Despite his explanations, how it all works is a mystery to me, and I would have no more idea how to maintain the electrics on his layout than he would on my father's....). 

[gordon s]

8 hours ago, Harlequin said:

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.)

 

The reverse loop circle above brought back memories........

 

It worked well, but I ran out of space.

 

[Nearholmer]

Nice legs!

 

 

[Nearholmer]

1 hour ago, RobinofLoxley said:

One persons complexity is another's simplicity.

 

A great deal of what passes for complexity is in fact simplicity, but oodles and oodles of it, which, if you are DIY-ing, is a problem in itself, because it consumes a lot of person.hours.

[Ravenser]

We seem to be in thread drift. However it does raise a number of issues not covered in Joseph Pestell's original posting:

 

- What scale are we talking about? I think everyone (including me) is casually assuming 4mm - but with that kind of space he might be aiming for 7mm. 

- What gauge/standards are intended?  If a finescale gauge/standards like EM, P4 or S7 is intended then the work involved becomes substantially greater . That imposes constraints on the project. So do the minimum radii required to take a Jubilee or Rebuilt Royal Scot

- What period is intended to be modelled?

 

- What rolling stock does Joseph own? What needs to be acquired for the project? If he has a sizeable fleet of kitbuilt LMS locos and coaches, then the project needs to suit his fleet. If he is starting with a clean slate, the cost of acquiring the fleet becomes an issue - and building to a non RTR gauge becomes much more challenging because time is finite. The standard aimed at will be set by the stock already available

 

- What control system is intended.?   Personally , on a project of this size, I'd look towards DCC because the labour of installing conventional hard-wired DC will be huge . DCC being plug and play will enable something to be up and running quickly, meaning that rewards are not delayed for years and enthusiasm is maintained. But DCC costs money - significant money in the case of a project this big. And if there is a substantial fleet of existing stock, which requires awkward hard-wired conversion , then that is s major obstacle to DCC

 

There are a lot of key decisions here , about which we are completely in the dark.....

 

 

[Harlequin]

Joseph clearly stated the answers to the first three points in the OP. All within one para, in fact.

OO means RTR so stock creation/acquisition won’t be difficult - in terms of time, at least.

Control method shouldn’t affect the basic layout design in a major way.

 

 

Edited December 31, 2020 by Harlequin

[RobinofLoxley]

12 hours ago, Harlequin said:

Joseph clearly stated the answers to the first three points in the OP. All within one para, in fact.

OO means RTR so stock creation/acquisition won’t be difficult - in terms of time, at least.

Control method shouldn’t affect the basic layout design in a major way.

 

 

Joseph states that he is going to operate in a very specific way. Of course it has implications for the layout design, because a large multi line multi train layout would be very hard to run this way. My guess is that he is going for long runs through scenery - it could even be a single track line.

[Harlequin]

13 minutes ago, RobinofLoxley said:

Joseph states that he is going to operate in a very specific way. Of course it has implications for the layout design, because a large multi line multi train layout would be very hard to run this way. My guess is that he is going for long runs through scenery - it could even be a single track line.

They are intertwined to some extent, of course, but the question is about layout design.

 

So I think we should consider operation to be subservient to the layout design, for now at least. Joseph may find that his proposed operating method doesn't suit the layout he wants and that could cause one or both to change - but that's for later.

 

To put it another way: If you want to model Kirkby Stephen, you're not going to seriously compromise the trackplan to accommodate the method of operation. You'll adapt the operating methods to make Kirkby Stephen work!

 

Edited January 1, 2021 by Harlequin

[Guy Rixon]

If I had that space, I would concentrate on two opportunities: long  trains and models of structures that can't readily be split or compressed. To combine the two, in the scope of a one-man project, I'd pick a serious bridge and model it to near-scale, with not too much scenery in front of the bridge, so that viewers could stand close enough to see the trains. It could be a viaduct somewhere out in the bleak moorland, but an urban setting could also be attractive, with the buildings at each end hiding the sharp curves to the return loops.

 

I'd also look into a automated control-system that runs sequences of trains over the bridge, respecting sections.

 

(What I'd really want to do is a proper model of a vast, urban station that would take 40 years to build and stock. But I don't have 40 years.)

[Ravenser]

25 minutes ago, Guy Rixon said:

If I had that space, I would concentrate on two opportunities: long  trains and models of structures that can't readily be split or compressed. To combine the two, in the scope of a one-man project, I'd pick a serious bridge and model it to near-scale, with not too much scenery in front of the bridge, so that viewers could stand close enough to see the trains. It could be a viaduct somewhere out in the bleak moorland, but an urban setting could also be attractive, with the buildings at each end hiding the sharp curves to the return loops.

 

I'd also look into a automated control-system that runs sequences of trains over the bridge, respecting sections.

 

(What I'd really want to do is a proper model of a vast, urban station that would take 40 years to build and stock. But I don't have 40 years.)

 

I give you :  Sydney Harbour Bridge

 

No I'm not going to do it, even though it was on my local line for 3 years. Quite apart from anything else , it wouldn't feel right to me unless at least an 8 car suburban train could be lost within the structure

 

Another pic here Rail approaches to Bridge, N. Sydney  North Sydney station visible in the background before they built the Travelodge and other things over it..

 

I do have a whitemetal kit for the tram visible in the first picture - though the underground tram platforms on the other side could be a goer - if I found the time and money to build quite a few fairly expensive prints from Shapeways and motorise them. 

[Joseph_Pestell]

I have been doing some more doodling this morning based on some of the ideas suggested here. In particular making better use of the width of each leg of the U-shape to get the fiddleyard(s) in a better place. That has made a lot of difference.

 

I think that control method and layout design are inevitably linked. I have no doubt that I will move towards DCC, having recently bought, via RMWeb, my first DCC loco. My current fleet of locos is not so vast as to represent too much of a problem to convert.

 

Given the need to be able to follow the train around the room, I will be looking to use some sort of wireless handheld device - probably one of the apps that can be downloaded onto a mobile phone. But given the way that I intend to use signals and relays to feed power to the track, it should be possible to have a main changeover switch that allows the whole layout to be either DC or DCC.

[KingEdwardII]

One thought for you concerns modelling a suitable station. One of the more interesting stations on the Leeds - Carlisle railway is Skipton. Even more so in its pre-Beeching form, with the lines to Ilkley, Grassington, Colne still in place, in addition to the Leeds, Bradford, Carlisle and Morecambe links still present today. Not too large - 6 platforms in total - but a good variety of different types of train from the small locals up to the mainline London - Glasgow expresses. With the space that you have available, a substantial through station is practical and there would be plenty of variety possible.

 

Yours,  Mike.