Too much space?

[Zomboid]

Here's a bit of an elaboration on what I'd do

The idea of the branch line and the detachable FY is to allow smaller scale operation (single handed, 2 people etc) as to use a layout this big to its full potential will need 4+ people, I'd guess.

 

The detachable FY could be a low level thing under the main lines (seems ridiculous to be talking about split levels in such a huge space), which would enable it to be part of the full operational concept as well as the reduced version.

 

The Halt could be a bigger deal too with proper goods facilities and so on, but the idea of a long scenic run with the big architecture (viaduct etc) along the back wall appeals. Somewhere to let your engines stretch their legs (My Alcos would make a lovely racket dragging a load of freight cars along such a long run)

 

I've assumed that the door at the top of the stairs is opposite where I've put the halt - if it's somewhere else then I imagine most of us on this thread will want to know...

Edited January 1, 2021 by Zomboid

[RJS1977]

I quite like that plan, though personally I'd put the halt where the fiddle yard is, move the junction to where the halt is and have the fiddle yard in place of the junction (with the branch line passing in front of it).  If the fiddle yard takes the form of a number of passing loops feeding on to the return loop, with a section break about 15" or so from the end of each loop, trains will stop in the fiddle yard automatically if the points (which can be worked from a remote panel) are against them - though probably best to have either a train detection system or CCTV so you can check the trains have arrived safely.

 

A fiddle yard laid out like that should need no manual intervention (other than changing the points and occasional clearing of stalled trains, derailments etc) so you should be able to send and receive trains from the terminus even when working alone (in much the same way as Buckingham can be operated single-handedly with trains running straight through Grandborough Junction and the Leighton Buzzard branch closed.

 

That said, with some sort of block control system in place, you should be able to queue at least five trains on the main line without difficulty. 

 

[Chimer]

1 hour ago, Zomboid said:

I've assumed that the door at the top of the stairs is opposite where I've put the halt - if it's somewhere else then I imagine most of us on this thread will want to know...

Now there's oodles of fun here, if Joseph doesn't mind a Bank Holiday diversion ......

 

This is Phase 3 for my plan, but I've also played "guess the original room layout and door positions" - assuming all the doors bar either housekeeper's or cook's will remain firmly shut from here on in.

 

 

 

 

[Joseph_Pestell]

 

Plenty of thinking and drawing been going on since my last posting.

 

Taking on some of the very good advice offered, I have decided that, for the moment, I will only use one part of the attic which will give me a space of approximately 11m x 4.2m. This is quite enough to be getting on with! (There's another reason that I won't trouble you with).

 

Two fiddle yards, probably traversers, will be put on a peninsular down the centre of the room. Given the length available, there is still space for some scenic area on the peninsular and the “Bradford” fiddleyard will be joined to a representation of the south end of the eastern, low-level platforms at Forster Square, numbered 7 to 9. That could be three through platforms, one down, two up, or two through platforms and a south-facing bay.

 

That leaves 3 sides of the room available for the continuous run, although proper timetable running will be end-to-end.

One of those sides will be the station at Dewsbury. I have not got the length that I need to include either the viaduct or the Huddersfield Branch Junction but I can model the junction “virtually” by including suitable signals within the visible area of the layout.

 

The other long side will be a small station, probably Cleckheaton East. I am not sure about the short side: quite possibly just plain double track.

 

The only snag with the above arrangement is that it can’t be entirely walkround with no duck-unders or lifting flaps which we previously achieved by way of the bridge over the stairwell. The door to the room will have to changed to open outwards on to the landing, but that is a small matter that can be resolved in an hour of carpentry.

[RobinofLoxley]

I suspect this is a wise decision. Its already a large space and large layouts are clearly an endurance challenge for solo modellers.

[RJS1977]

10 hours ago, RobinofLoxley said:

I suspect this is a wise decision. Its already a large space and large layouts are clearly an endurance challenge for solo modellers.

 

And if you start with a small layout, you can always extend it later...

[Joseph_Pestell]

I did not want to post a photo of the house until I had got all the paperwork signed. But well on the way now with all the formalities including finally finding a buyer for my parents' house. House buyers are like buses: none for ages then three come all together.

 

Now find that I can not get the link to work! But will post the photo in due course. I showed it to a friend and he immediately said "It's a bit close to the railway". But then he's not a rail enthusiast.

 

Meantime, if any of you are curious, get up St Sulpice Lauriere on Google Maps and take the yellow man into the station car park. The house is just across the tracks, the one with the mansard roof.

[tractionman]

This one?

 

 

Looks fantastic!

 

All the best,

 

Keith

[Zomboid]

Looks like a nice part of the world to be moving to. And a nice house, though a big old place like that is probably more than I'd want to take on!

[wairoa]

On 29/12/2020 at 09:55, 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. Certainly my father and I find his 32' long layout (with one major station) about as much as we can cope with.

 

What a great paragraph. I am currently looking at building a 00/HO layout on a 12'x8'.  The main reason for that size is because, as you pointed out, it is about as much as I can handle. I live in the U.S and while there are some very big layouts over here, most of the layouts I am around are significantly smaller.  

 

OP your plan looks impressive. Looking fwd to see you develop the space. 

Edited March 8, 2021 by wairoa

[RobinofLoxley]

When Cyril wrote that was he in the DCC era (ignoring Zero1)?

[RJS1977]

2 hours ago, RobinofLoxley said:

When Cyril wrote that was he in the DCC era (ignoring Zero1)?

 

No, and I appreciate that the (supposedly) simplified wiring of DCC may help. However it doesn't obviate the need for track cleaning, maintaining of point motors etc, nor that a point gets reached where making a layout more complex doesn't necessarily make it more interesting to operate it, as a single operator can't operate it all at once.

[RobinofLoxley]

12 minutes ago, RJS1977 said:

 

No, and I appreciate that the (supposedly) simplified wiring of DCC may help. However it doesn't obviate the need for track cleaning, maintaining of point motors etc, nor that a point gets reached where making a layout more complex doesn't necessarily make it more interesting to operate it, as a single operator can't operate it all at once.

Its the possibility to automate that changes the game. There are people out there operating layouts of a complexity that CJF probably couldnt have imagined, right now. Where the enjoyment comes from is entirely separate - personally Im going to put a great deal of effort into reliable layout building, track laying, etc, so that I can enable that complexity. There will be  a lot of job staisfaction in that, in the same way that some modellers derive satisfaction from highy detailed stock construction actvities

[peach james]

To add to what Robin has posted, I'd absolutely have to agree- if you want to "operate" a layout, it is possible to, with DCC and automation, run as a part of a system rather than as a single operator.  That's just not really possible under DC, even if you use some fairly sophisticated systems.  Let's say your interest is modeling a station with goods yard- you can do so with DCC, and have the computer control the trains passing through the station- be it single or double track.  And you can do the "fun" bit of taking the goods train, and shunting the yard.  Or, you can set it up so the computer runs the goods train, as you run the passing through passenger trains...or, if 3 of your mates come over, the 3 of you can run trains (in a post COVID world...) such that one of you is running passengers, one running the goods in the station, and one is staging trains.  The automation effects that even RR&Co 5.0 offer allow for those sorts of multi posiblities that simply can't happen at one time if you have a conventional layout.

The availabilty of all kinds of RTR means that it is far more practical now than it has ever been in the past for any of the big 4, and BR.  Basically, you don't have to scratchbuild anything, and even kit building is far more optional than required.  The quality per pound that you get now is better than ever if you want to model like that.

 

[mdvle]

4 hours ago, RobinofLoxley said:

Its the possibility to automate that changes the game. There are people out there operating layouts of a complexity that CJF probably couldnt have imagined, right now. Where the enjoyment comes from is entirely separate - personally Im going to put a great deal of effort into reliable layout building, track laying, etc, so that I can enable that complexity. There will be  a lot of job staisfaction in that, in the same way that some modellers derive satisfaction from highy detailed stock construction actvities

 

To me, what CJF was saying had 2 aspects to it.

 

The first was regarding how much layout a given person could operate at once.

 

Automation sort of changes that.  Yes, if the automation itself is your ultimate goal, then a larger layout becomes possible given that you essentially become a dispatcher - you program in the train movements and press start.  In this scenario layout size really only becomes restricted by budget.

 

But if the automation is being done for realism - in that trains continue to move through the scene by some sort of schedule operating "around" the train you are physically operating - then one returns to CJF's layout size restriction.

 

But the 2nd aspect is really the one that automation doesn't solve - and that is the building and maintaining (and this obviously is dependent on both budget but also what you want - if you don't want scenery things get a lot easier) of the layout.

 

So automation doesn't really change the game as such for most people.

 

 

[RobinofLoxley]

Its true that initial construction and maintenance are heavier loads the larger the layout, but these arent the only factors. My impression as a fairly recent arrival here is that quite a lot of modellers have more stock than they can ever fit on their layouts, regardless of size. This all has to be looked after. I formerly kept everything on the layout, though Im wondering if in future I might pack all the stock away during Jan and Feb. 

 

Im not sure that a manually operated schedule would be more 'realistic'.

[Dunsignalling]

Cyril Freezer's ideas on a practical maximum were written at a time when, if one wanted a "proper" model railway, it usually meant moving away from r-t-r, and building enough locos and stock to run a half-decent service on a really big layout wasn't going to be quick.  In any event, most of his plans tended to be drawn to fit spaces which a reasonable number of his readers might consider attainable without a pools win. His suggested 20' x 16' will accommodate all the elements necessary (and manageable) for a solo modeller/operator. However, one  can easily double both measurements, by easing curves, designing for longer trains, and increasing the distance between stations (given this kind of space, nobody is going to permanently settle for one are they?). In fact, all the increase is in baseboard and scenery construction, the amount of plain track, and the length of wiring runs. Nothing, of necessity, becomes more complex.

 

Nowadays, a space such as this begs for scale length main line trains, running through models of real places. The trains are, in large part, quickly acquired r-t-r to a very decent standard. There will be inevitable gaps , but plausible substitution (aka a couple extra rakes of Mk.1s) can get you by until you, or the trade, get round to filling them with everything you really want/need. 

 

In terms of getting enough of it built in a reasonable time and realising operational potential, it also cries out for getting a group together. The layout to which I currently contribute is 50' x 18', with just one station (though that admittedly has one platform that's 22' long in 4mm scale), but there are two sets of storage loops and two sets of dead-end storage to enable it to be operated prototypically. It takes six people to do that justice, but straight-through main line train-watching, running-in new locos etc. is easily arranged for one or two.

 

That last point is important. otherwise the layout will remain dormant most of the time. Be warned, though, this one has been going for 25 years (getting on for 20 of them before I "joined") and is nothing like finished yet! 

 

John

Edited March 8, 2021 by Dunsignalling

[RJS1977]

14 minutes ago, Dunsignalling said:

Cyril Freezer's ideas on a practical maximum were written at a time when, if one wanted a "proper" model railway, it usually meant moving away from r-t-r, and building enough locos and stock to run a half-decent service on a really big layout wasn't going to be quick.  In any event, most of his plans tended to be drawn to fit spaces which a reasonable number of his readers might consider attainable without a pools win. His suggested 20' x 16' will accommodate all the elements necessary (and manageable) for a solo modeller/operator. However, one  can easily double both measurements, by easing curves, designing for longer trains, and increasing the distance between stations (given this kind of space, nobody is going to permanently settle for one are they?). In fact, all the increase is in baseboard and scenery construction, the amount of plain track, and the length of wiring runs. Nothing, of necessity, becomes more complex.

 

 

This is where the flip side of Cyril's argument comes in - that beyond his 'maximum' size you're probably going to have to construct a suitable room or building yourself, which comes with planning permission, construction costs, heating, lighting and council tax increases etc, which is a lot of hassle and expense if at the end of it the level of enjoyment isn't increased proportionally.

[RJS1977]

With regards to automation, I have personal familiarity with two semi-automatic layouts, one analogue, and one DCC. 

 

The first - my father's - has a large through station with branch line and goods yard. Trains can be made up and left to circulate whilst more trains are made up and the yard is shunted.

 

The other - belonging to a club friend - features a large terminus station with a convoluted main line  ending in a reversing loop, along with a low level goods loop. Trains can be sent out, follow the block pattern on the main line and brought back automatically, whence the operator puts another loco on the end and sends it out again.

 

Both fascinating layouts, but both requiring a fair degree of maintenance to keep them working. On my father's layout the main issues are failure of a reed switch or an accessory switch. On my friend's, the main issue is failure of the servos operating the points, although occasionally the automation units may 'throw a wobbly'. One of our twelve annual 'running' sessions is spent cleaning the wheels on all the stock!

 

I think if either was given the opportunity to build a layout twice the size (and the life span to do so!) the reply would be "Thanks for the offer, but this is plenty...."

 

[Mike Todd]

Going slightly off topic, does anyone remember the model railway at Hamley’s of Regent Street in London probably in the early/mid 1950’s. There was a large sweeping staircase up to the first floor and the atrium was surrounded by a beautiful 4mm scale railway, fully scened, probably mostly hand made. It held my imagination even though, if I remember correctly, it was only a single line roundy roundy. Less is more, as they say.

[RobinofLoxley]

14 hours ago, Mike Todd said:

Going slightly off topic, does anyone remember the model railway at Hamley’s of Regent Street in London probably in the early/mid 1950’s. There was a large sweeping staircase up to the first floor and the atrium was surrounded by a beautiful 4mm scale railway, fully scened, probably mostly hand made. It held my imagination even though, if I remember correctly, it was only a single line roundy roundy. Less is more, as they say.

I made an annual pilgrimage to Hamleys to see the layout from the age of about 5, my father took me every year to see the xmas lights and eat roast chestnuts from braziers. The layout had the appearance of being a number of individual loops each with its own train, or possibly trains, but it could have been a single track in fact curving repeatedly over itself with trains at intervals. I couldnt tell you which, I just watched the trains run past. Given the location you couldnt follow each line by eye to find out if it was continuous or not.

[KingEdwardII]

On 08/03/2021 at 17:02, mdvle said:

Automation sort of changes that. 

I think that automation changes things a lot.

 

With modern computer-driven systems, it becomes possible for a single operator to handle a layout with multiple things going on at once. So you can enjoy a bit of shunting in the yard at the same time that trains run to schedule on the main line - and do all the right things in terms of stopping at stations and waiting at stop signals for a clear road.

 

I have no desire to automate everything, but the idea of having 3 or 4 things going on at the same time does interest me.

 

Yours, Mike.

[Denbridge]

Whilst a huge space in model terms, another way of looking at it would be to use one side for a reasonably large station based on a prototype. Even then allowing for curves at each end, you would, for most prototype stations, need to use selective compression to fit it in.