A tentative return to 00 gauge

[Mr Grumpy]

 

If the station level was raised, the incline would begin following the second curved points, and only by 15mm or approx 1/2”. Therefore the parcels depot would be so treated. 

If the outer platform has a wall, I doubt I would bother with the incline.

Just realised the crossover is reversed to how I intended :-)

At present I have no idea on the use of those sidings, I could even leave them out. Nice looking layout Nearholmer...takes me back a bit :-)  I’ll check out the parcels bay later.

I’m just having a play with TP15 at the moment....

Edited January 25, 2021 by Mr Grumpy

[Chimer]

Given that trains are going to start their journeys clockwise, go round the reversing loop and finish up anti-clockwise, I think you're missing somewhere to start freight workings from.  And as someone else said, crane shunting is no fun ......... So:

 

 

A siding as shown in red could be be used as to swop freights using 3' cassettes. The cassettes could even be ballasted so they looked all right while empty.  It's got to be a better option than trying to fiddle in the loops behind the backscene.  And of course a train leaving this siding could return to it eventually via the reversing loop.  The two sidings I seem to be chopping off could be kept as kick-backs off the cassette road if required.

 

Just a thought .....

 

Cheers, Chris

[Mr Grumpy]

Thanks Chris, that’s a good suggestion. Also getting shot of the right hand sidings will narrow the boards and make the parcel depot less of a stretch :-)

[Teabag]

As Harlequin asked, the arrangement in the garage is a key ppint to consider.  I wanted a similar layout - a late 80s /early 90s with continuous run (with off scene staging sidings), reverse loops for storage, a terminus, some shunting etc. in the garage.  The garage has a door at one end onto the garden and occasionally things need to be dragged through.  In the end I decided that instead of going around the walls with a lift up section, I would put the layout on one side of the garage but add wheels so that it could be pulled out for maintenance.  It fits in a similar space to yours (its ~12' x 6' or 3.6m x 1.8m) and leaves a 2 foot access on 3 sides.  The basic design in anyrail is below (the through station and its point work is copied from the classic Bredon) - the track is all laid and wired and I'm part way through the scenery (which might change a bit from the original sketch).

[Mr Grumpy]

Hi Teabag/Harlequin,

I have partially converted my garage, so the up and over door no longer opens, but is closed off with an insulated stud wall. The door into the room is where the lifting section is located, and opens into the room. I have the option to re-hang the door or fit a sliding one.

So, onto the next incarnation of the plan.....

I have juggled the station and the parcel shed is approached from both rear lines, simplifying shunting. I have removed the two sidings at the front right of the plan and added the straight line which could be used as a cassette enabling a rake of wagons to be replaced with less handling.

 

[Zomboid]

Just messing around I got this into 11' x 7'6. The tightest curve in the visible section is 2' radius, which may or may not be acceptable. Would be fine for me, but that's just me.

 

The dotted line is where the return loop has been singled like Salisbury - Exeter or Oxford - Worcester in the class 50 era, so I'd build the baseboard and scenery as though it were there, but obviously it's not in actuality.

 

There's scope for doing more interesting stuff with the station (which is supposed to be a bit like Weymouth), but I was looking at the circuits mostly, the colours are to clarify how those work. Getting a complete double track circuit in with what looks like a reasonable amount of off-scene parking is more than I expected to fit...

[Mr Grumpy]

Hi Zomboid, 

another interesting proposal:-) I imagine that is a double slip at the foot of the reverse loop?

I had forgotten what fun can be had from designing layouts!!

My last 0 gauge layout was end to end and to be honest, it didn’t hold my interest for long. I much preferred building kits. This time round, I’ll be happy to watch the trains pass by and then have some interaction at the station after a few laps. My eye sight isn’t what it was, so the stock will all be RTR. I’m handy with the airbrush and certainly enjoy weathering stock, just can’t build it any more :-(

[Zomboid]

It's a single slip as drawn, but a double would give another potential route. In fact it would probably be a good idea so the pink loop could be bi-directional with regards to the return loop.

 

Designing layouts for other people is great fun. I enjoy the process and never have to actually build anything... The downside is that I don't get to actually play trains at all, but every silver lining has its cloud.

[Nearholmer]

regarding the terminal station, do try to make sure you can run-round without needing to touch the main line, and ideally try to be able to move a loco between roads and onto a train in the bay without touching the main line - the little trap-neck that Zomboid has provided in his version makes a huge difference to operability.

[DCB]

14 hours ago, Mr Grumpy said:

I have added the crossover and ‘suggested’ the station platform isn’t serving the main line. If I used this option, I would raise the station by 15mm just to give a bit of separation and add a wall along the platform edge.

The return loop is a necessity to return loco hauled stock in to the terminus so will be staying. 
This is going to be a long term build, mainly in the Autumn/Winter season when I can’t play outside :-)

 

Looking good, I don't think raising the station is a good idea in this instance, modern OO RTR is notoriously free running and will run on a 1 in 100 or so, hence you either have a very short steep ramp or your stock goes roll about when you try to run a loco round. I keep whinging about DCC brakes for stock but no one takes me seriously. I actually use magnets to hold some of my stock in none too level storage sidings.  I would leave the station level but have the main trackwork on a slight rise above baseboard level, maybe drop the end baseboards 15mm compared with the station board.  track always looks good on a low embankment.  If its modern image I wouldn't worry about he single track approach, Penzance has 4 platforms and a singe track approach. To create an illusion a disused track bed beside the running line would give the impression of former grandeur without hideously complicated trackwork in the station throat, essentially home made point work, much harder to cobble up in 2 rail OO than Coarse scale O gauge or R/C 16mm etc.

It looks like an interesting and flexible layout to operate.  Run to a timetable or just let a train run and run.

[KingEdwardII]

I'd like to re-iterate a piece of advice given earlier in the thread. Plan the lifting section so that the track which crosses the joins of the lifting section is straight. Removable or lifting sections where the track crossing the join is curved are bad news and likely to cause trouble - I speak from experience, having made this mistake once.

 

The removable section in my current layout was planned to ensure a length of straight track either side of the joints, even though the overall section involved goes through a 60 degree turn. It works perfectly with no problems. In my case, the removable section is bigger than it needed to be, in order to get these straight tracks in.

 

Yours,  Mike.

[Harlequin]

6 minutes ago, KingEdwardII said:

I'd like to re-iterate a piece of advice given earlier in the thread. Plan the lifting section so that the track which crosses the joins of the lifting section is straight. Removable or lifting sections where the track crossing the join is curved are bad news and likely to cause trouble - I speak from experience, having made this mistake once.

 

The removable section in my current layout was planned to ensure a length of straight track either side of the joints, even though the overall section involved goes through a 60 degree turn. It works perfectly with no problems. In my case, the removable section is bigger than it needed to be, in order to get these straight tracks in.

 

Yours,  Mike.

If the board alignment is repeatably accurate and the rails are securely fixed either side of the joint it really shouldn’t be a problem.

 

What were the problems you had?

 

[KingEdwardII]

15 minutes ago, Harlequin said:

What were the problems you had?

Derailments - in a word.

 

Mike.

[Harlequin]

Deleted

Edited January 26, 2021 by Harlequin

[Nearholmer]

1 hour ago, KingEdwardII said:

Plan the lifting section so that the track which crosses the joins of the lifting section is straight

Yes!!!

 

Unless you are able to maintain iron-hard fixture of everything against immovable datums (data?), all the clever stuff with curved or angled track is a recipe for annoyance.

 

Why? Because the tiniest movement due to expansion, contraction, or settlement over time causes misalignment. Anything involving wood that has to maintain a +/- 0.5mm tolerance is bound to be tricky.

Edited January 26, 2021 by Nearholmer

[Zomboid]

I think it's probably fair to say that you can do a lift out on a curve, but it's easier to make it reliable if the end crossings are straight and at 90*. Presumably in a straight crossing the rails are equally loaded, but on a corner the outer rail takes more load and it's more sensitive to misalignments.

 

I've seen some very shallow angles done successfully on multi-section baseboards, but I wouldn't attempt it myself.

[Nearholmer]

It works fine on multi-section, dowel and bolted together, I’ve done it even in HOe with code 55 rail; where it all becomes really difficult is on lifting flaps.

[Harlequin]

True, the engineering for angled joints would need to be a bit more precise, and especially where the track curves towards the joint on either side, but even for straight perpendicular joints you need to ensure sub millimetre accuracy for reliable running so an angled joint isn't that much more difficult (if the angle is not too extreme).

 

There are two problems with ensuring straight bits either side of lifting section joints:

1. It opens out the radius where the track needs to curve in the corner of a room, as in this case. Where space is tight that could seriously affect the design.

2. Straight sections in the midst of curves look weird in scenic runs, as in this case. (Although it would be better to have lifting sections be non-scenic where possible.)

 

That's why I'm worried about unqualified advice not to do it at all.

 

Edited January 26, 2021 by Harlequin

[KingEdwardII]

9 minutes ago, Harlequin said:

That's why I'm worried about unqualified advice not to do it at all.

Phil,

 

I take the view that in this case, to avoid tears later, it is best to give the unqualified advice - doing lift out joins on curves is a very tricky thing to achieve with success - Nearholmer gives some of the reasons above.

 

I can agree with you that doing straight sections within curves can look odd - which for me is a clarion call to look much harder at the size and placement of the lift out section. I made mine much larger than necessary in order to get the whole curve in while allowing for straight sections on either side. I think that is a price worth paying to get reliable running.

 

I also used dowel cams (as used in kitchen units and similar furniture) to get accurate alignment of the ends of the lift out section, both horizontally and vertically. More work and it means a procedure to fix & release the lift out, but necessary to avoid mismatch of the ends of the rails across the joints.

 

Mike.

[Mr Grumpy]

Thanks chaps for more useful and practical advice :-) 

The proposed  layout would take up what is left of the garage as a chunk has been stolen to create a utility room, so absolutely no room to walk around the perimeter of the boards.

My last layout had a baseboard height of 1230mm (approx 4’) so I could sit on my favourite chair and look across the tracks with the trains at eye level. I soon discovered this was less than ideal for shunting operations.

However, if I re-hang the entrance door and keep the boards to the same height as before (the fixings are still in place along one wall) I could reluctantly concede to duck under rather than build the lifting section as I know my carpentry skills would not be up to the job of such fine tolerances. Probably irritate me and get a sore head and back though :-)

Edited January 26, 2021 by Mr Grumpy

[Nearholmer]

Lifting flaps on curves.

 

Two choices:

 

- put masses and masses of care and effort into getting it right; or,

 

- suffer a life of frustrated disappointment.

 

The number of people with the skills and knowledge to achieve the first are very few (me excluded until recently - after two failed attempts I could probably achive it now); RMWeb is littered with examples of the latter, including one or two very expensive and time-consuming disappointments.

 

Mr Grumpy will know which camp he falls into, I guess.

[RobinofLoxley]

13 hours ago, Teabag said:

As Harlequin asked, the arrangement in the garage is a key ppint to consider.  I wanted a similar layout - a late 80s /early 90s with continuous run (with off scene staging sidings), reverse loops for storage, a terminus, some shunting etc. in the garage.  The garage has a door at one end onto the garden and occasionally things need to be dragged through.  In the end I decided that instead of going around the walls with a lift up section, I would put the layout on one side of the garage but add wheels so that it could be pulled out for maintenance.  It fits in a similar space to yours (its ~12' x 6' or 3.6m x 1.8m) and leaves a 2 foot access on 3 sides.  The basic design in anyrail is below (the through station and its point work is copied from the classic Bredon) - the track is all laid and wired and I'm part way through the scenery (which might change a bit from the original sketch).

Why do my anyrail plans look nothing like this??

[Flying Pig]

14 hours ago, Zomboid said:

Just messing around I got this into 11' x 7'6. The tightest curve in the visible section is 2' radius, which may or may not be acceptable. Would be fine for me, but that's just me.

 

The dotted line is where the return loop has been singled like Salisbury - Exeter or Oxford - Worcester in the class 50 era, so I'd build the baseboard and scenery as though it were there, but obviously it's not in actuality.

 

There's scope for doing more interesting stuff with the station (which is supposed to be a bit like Weymouth), but I was looking at the circuits mostly, the colours are to clarify how those work. Getting a complete double track circuit in with what looks like a reasonable amount of off-scene parking is more than I expected to fit...

 

It occurs to me that while two trains can circulate on this plan, if either wants to reverse or return to the station, it has to cross the other's path.  So it isn't possible to circulate a train unattended at the same time as running out and back workings from the station.  I can't see a way round this without involving gradients (basically, building Crewlisle).

 

So, consider singling the main from about opposite the platform ends to the fiddle yard.  I think this might look more in keeping with the post-rationalisation period of despondency and dereliction on the former LSWR (you could include the former second trackbed as @DavidCBroadsuggested).  How much would it spoil operation?  You could still run a train from the station to the fiddle yard with one circulating anticlockwise, though it wouldn't be able to reverse or return.  How important is having two trains circulating simultaneously?

[Zomboid]

It is an either/or with trains circulating and using a return loop. I think I'd probably single the line too for more operational involvement, but having two complete circuits is a benefit for just letting things run for a while, if the OP wants to do that.

[DCB]

I think you are getting away from a railway like track layout to make occasional moves easier. By the 1970s the rationalised railway needed awkward shunting moves to access sidings etc, by the 2010s many freight and engineering trains needed toping and tailing to operate at all.

The removal of the need for brake vans considerably simplified shunting where trains reversed so the original 2 sidings would be ample for most goods, Ok it blocks the main line but so do full size shunts.

 

Lifting or lift out sections with have a curve across the join are awkward, I have about 4 lines curving across a joint on a hinged lifting section which occasionally give problems, but having the rails cut at right angles to the track so that both wheels hit the joint together helps immensely. Simply make the lift section a strange shape so its a right angles to the track to minimise hassle. I use car bonnet or wallpaper table hinges an inch or so above baseboard level, they are about 8mm wide not 80mm like door hinges very solid, don't work loose and easy to disguise. 

 

 I reckon this plan was pretty good, I spread the sidings a bit, the one nearest the well could equally be a scenic cassette.

 

 

 

Edited January 27, 2021 by DavidCBroad